Proportionality testing: balancing and necessity shape judicial review of rights restrictions and alternative standards limit discretion.

Proportionality requires a staged means-end inquiry-legitimate aim, rational connection and necessity-with some models adding a final balancing stage to weigh the seriousness of the infringement against the importance of the objective. Alternatives include calibrated scrutiny and means-ends approaches that limit ad hoc balancing, while strict scrutiny demands a compelling state interest and narrow tailoring. Wednesbury unreasonableness remains a deferential test for administrative decisions. Key tensions arise between flexibility for contextual adjudication and the desire for bright-line rules to ensure predictability and limit judicial discretion.

---

---

---