The End of Means-End Scrutiny

It is black-letter law that courts apply means-end scrutiny to evaluate laws that burden constitutional rights. Not anymore. Discreetly and pervasively, the Supreme Court has ousted means-end scrutiny from constitutional law. It has done so through a series of smaller and seemingly unconnected doctrinal incursions, including the introduction of history and tradition tests, the transformation of equality doctrines, and the embrace of formalist rules to govern constitutional law.&nbsp; <div> <br> </div> <div> This Article provides a complete and interconnected critique of the numerous doctrinal transformations that together comprise the larger constitutional revolution of ending means-end scrutiny. It tracks how this upheaval now touches nearly every fundamental right and important federal power—but not in exactly the same way. Rather, the Court has tailored the end of means-end scrutiny to benefit the same subset of authorities, rights, and groups. In particular, the end of means-end scrutiny has reoriented the landscape of constitutional law to weaken federal authority, strengthen protection for libertarian as opposed to egalitarian rights, and benefit private power and dominant political, economic, and social groups.&nbsp; <div> <br> </div> <div> The upshot of this patterned end of means-end scrutiny is a foundational change not just to the prevailing methodology of constitutional adjudication but also to the very nature of constitutional rights and judicial review. By eliminating consideration of governmental means and ends from the construction of rights, the Court has crafted a new form of judicial review that is court-centric, formalist, and dominance-reinforcing. The Article tracks and critiques this doctrinal and theoretical transformation, connecting it to the most salient debates in constitutional law today and exposing the deep and troubling consequences of the seismic—and yet largely silent—collapse of means-end scrutiny.&nbsp; </div> </div>