When might courts apply a lower standard of scrutiny instead of 'strict scrutiny'?

The correct choice highlights that courts may apply a lower standard of scrutiny when evaluating laws that do not affect a suspect class. In the context of constitutional law, particularly under the Equal Protection Clause, different standards of scrutiny are used depending on the nature of the law in question and the rights or classes involved.

Strict scrutiny is reserved for laws that discriminate against suspect classes—such as race or national origin—or that impinge on fundamental rights, like the right to vote or free speech. This means that such laws must serve a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

When a law does not target a suspect class or infringe upon recognized fundamental rights, courts can apply a lower standard, such as rational basis review. This means the law must merely have a legitimate government interest and be rationally related to that interest. This lower standard reflects a greater deference to legislative decisions in areas that do not pose significant risks to vulnerable groups or critical freedoms.

Other answer choices may not align with this principle. For instance, health care laws can sometimes relate to fundamental rights or can significantly impact suspect classes, while state-level taxation may have specific legal standards applied beyond scrutiny. Minimal impact on fundamental rights might suggest a lower standard, but it is the