Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Equal Protection Clause. Under strict scrutiny, the government must have a compelling interest in enacting the law and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Substantive due process is a doctrine that allows courts to invalidate laws that are found to be arbitrary, capricious, or fundamentally unfair. Under substantive due process, the government must have a legitimate interest in enacting the law and the law must be rationally related to that interest.

Rational basis review is the least rigorous standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Commerce Clause. Under rational basis review, the government must have a legitimate interest in enacting the law and the law must be rationally related to that interest.

Strict scrutiny is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the First Amendment. Under strict scrutiny, the government must have a compelling interest in enacting the law and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Reasonable suspicion is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Fourth Amendment. Under reasonable suspicion, the government must have a well-founded and articulable belief that criminal activity is afoot in order to justify a search or seizure.

Due process is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Fifth Amendment. Under due process, the government must provide fair and reasonable procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.

Fair trial is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Sixth Amendment. Under fair trial, the government must provide a fair and impartial trial to all criminal defendants.

Cruel and unusual punishment is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Eighth Amendment. Under cruel and unusual punishment, the government may not inflict excessive or disproportionate punishment on criminal defendants.

Unenumerated rights is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Ninth Amendment. Under unenumerated rights, the government may not infringe on rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

State's rights is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Tenth Amendment. Under state's rights, the government may not infringe on the powers that are reserved to the states by the Constitution.

Preemption is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Supremacy Clause. Under preemption, the government may not enact laws that conflict with federal laws.

Fundamental rights is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Under fundamental rights, the government may not infringe on rights that are fundamental to the American way of life.

Comity is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Under comity, states are required to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.

Impairment of contracts is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Contract Clause. Under impairment of contracts, the government may not enact laws that impair the obligations of contracts.

Public use is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing laws that are alleged to violate the Takings Clause. Under public use, the government may not take private property for public use without just compensation.