The federal rule also assumes that certain settings are not home and community-based. The home and community-based services (HCBS) settings rule requirements define the qualities of settings that are eligible for reimbursement of Medicaid home and community-based services.

HCBS heightened scrutiny evidentiary summaries (PDF).

HCBS heightened scrutiny public comment summaries (PDF).

Comments received that were not specific to an individual provider setting are also included. The evidence from the heightened scrutiny review is documented in evidentiary summaries.Д¬omments received regarding specific provider settings during the February 22, 2021вЂ“March 24, 2021, public comment period have been added to that provider's evidentiary summary. DHS conducted a heightened scrutiny review process and determined there is enough evidence to show CMS that these settings are not institutional in nature and that they meet CMS's compliance requirements. This article was originally published in 2019.Heightened scrutiny evidentiary summariesДHS concluded a 30-day public comment period on its findings about HCBS long-term care settings that were identified for heightened scrutiny review. He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018).

is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. The Court ruled that the ban on sleeping was a content-neutral regulation on expression that furthered the governmentвЂ™s substantial governmental interest in keeping public parks and property in вЂњan attractive and intact condition.вЂќДavid L. In that decision, the Court upheld a ban on sleeping in public parks in Washington D.C. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984). Supreme Court utilized the substantial governmental interest test was its decision in Clark v. Under all of these versions of intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that its speech regulation meets a substantial or important governmental interest.ДЄn example of when the U.S. Three common examples are the general content-neutral test, the OвЂ™Brien test for when speech and non-speech are connected together, and the Central-Hudson test for commercial speech regulations. Supreme Court has different versions of intermediate scrutiny in First Amendment jurisprudence. Court has different versions of intermediate scrutiny in First Amendment cases Content-based regulations are subject to strict scrutiny, while content-neutral regulations are subject to intermediate scrutiny. In First Amendment law, regulations on speech are often analyzed as to whether they are content-based or content-neutral. Rational basis, the most deferential form of review for the government, means that the government must also have a legitimate interest that is rational and non-arbitrary. Intermediate scrutiny means that the government must advance a substantial or important governmental interest in a narrowly tailored way or a way that does not substantially burden more speech than necessary. Under intermediate scrutiny, government must show a substantial government interest Under it, the government must advance a compelling, or extremely important interest, often advanced in the least-speech restrictive way possible. Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review. In modern constitutional law, there are three standards of review: (1) strict scrutiny (2) intermediate or heightened scrutiny and (3) rational basis. It represents a governmental interest more than a legitimate interest but less than a compelling governmental interest. The substantial governmental interest test is a part of the intermediate scrutiny analysis in First Amendment law. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook, used with permission from the Associated Press) In this photo, Mitch Snyder, left, leader of Community for Creative Non-Violence, takes part in a demonstration for the homeless in Washington in 1988. The Court ruled that the ban furthered a substantial government interest in protecting parks for the enjoyment of millions of people. An example of this substantial government interest is found in a case involving Community for Creative Non-Violence that challenged a ban on camping in Lafayette Park across from the White House. If a law infringing upon First Amendment rights is content-neutral, the courts may uphold the law if there is a 'substantial government interest' in the activity that the law seeks to prohibit.