Not all legal distinctions violate the Constitution. Courts allow governments to differentiate between individuals if the discrimination meets constitutional standards. Three levels of scrutiny determine which distinctions are permissible. Under rational basis review, the most lenient standard, the government only needs to show its distinctions are rationally related to a legitimate government interest rather than arbitrary. This standard applies to economic regulations and most everyday government actions. Intermediate scrutiny requires the government to show its action furthers an important government interest using means substantially related to that interest. This applies to quasi-suspect classifications like gender or legitimacy. Strict scrutiny, the most rigorous standard, requires the government to prove its action furthers a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny applies to suspect classifications including race, religion, national origin, and alienage. Under rational basis review, only the most egregious enactments are overturned, while strict scrutiny invalidates most challenged laws.