What outcome can result if a law does not meet the requirements of 'strict scrutiny'?

In the context of constitutional law, 'strict scrutiny' is the highest standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws that classify individuals based on race, national origin, or infringe upon fundamental rights. For a law to pass this rigorous review, it must serve a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest using the least restrictive means.

If a law does not meet the strict scrutiny requirements, it is deemed unconstitutional because it fails to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This outcome emphasizes the courts' commitment to safeguarding individual liberties against unjust governmental actions. Thus, when a law is found lacking under this standard, it reinforces the principle that governmental interests must be balanced against individual rights, and laws must meet stringent criteria to be considered valid.