The following excerpt is from Harrison v. Kernan, 971 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2020):
Our adoption of the intermediate scrutiny standard "should not be read to mean that deference [to prison officials] plays no role in prisoners constitutional claims." Harrington v. Scribner , 785 F.3d 1299, 1307 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing the application of strict scrutiny to a race-based prison claim). Under heightened scrutiny, the deference owed to judgments made by prison officials is factored into the importance of the government's asserted interest; stated differently, "penological interests may still factor into the analysis of an equal protection claim" because such considerations "properly inform whether there exists a[n important state] interest." Id. at 1308 (but noting that in considering a race-based claim, those considerations "do not excuse the narrow tailoring requirement").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.