to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately. Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact" since popular perception is that most laws subjected to the standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases. However, a discrepancy was found in the type of religious liberty claim, with most claims for exemption from law failing and no allegedly discriminatory laws surviving. See also the cases cited below, however; several appear to permit the exemption from laws based upon religious liberty. 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", a view that has been acknowledged by U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas (e.g. in his dissent (part III) in Hellerstedt). The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves claims that do not involve a suspect class or fundamental right, but still arise under the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause. Presumption of constitutionality doesn't apply under strict scrutiny; the burden to prove the constitutionality of a law shifts to the government lawyers. Suspect classification The Supreme Court has established standards for determining whether a statute or policy's classification must satisfy strict scrutiny. One ruling suggested its standard might be that the relevant class must have experienced a history of discrimination, must be definable as a group based on "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics", or be