Circuit Court's 2007 ruling in Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach that compelling government interest was demonstrated in the restriction of unapproved prescription drugs.
Harvard law professor Richard Fallon Jr. has written that rather than being neatly applied, under strict scrutiny, "interpretation is more varied than is often recognized",[4] a view that has been acknowledged by U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas (e.g. in his dissent (part III) in Hellerstedt).
One ruling suggested that the affected class of people must have experienced a history of discrimination, must be definable as a group based on "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics", or be a minority or "politically powerless".
[6] The Court has consistently found that classifications based on race, national origin, and alienage require strict scrutiny review.
The Supreme Court held that all race-based classifications must be subjected to strict scrutiny in Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), overruling Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (89-453), 497 U.S. 547 (1990), which had briefly allowed the use of intermediate scrutiny to analyze the Equal Protection implications of race-based classifications in the narrow category of affirmative-action programs established by the federal government in the broadcasting field.