The State of Tejas excludes from jury service convicted felons, non-residents, people with certain mental disabilities, people who are not United States citizens and people under the age of 18. Otherwise, all adult state citizens are eligible to serve on a jury. Recently, the legislature passed an act adding the following disqualifying language.

No person for whom English is not their first language may serve on a jury in the State of Tejas.

The legislative history expressly states two purposes for the statute. First, because virtually all trials are conducted in English, it is imperative that all jurors understand that language and, information before the legislature indicated that, generally, those whose first language was other than English had greater difficulty understanding English. Second, in some trials a witness may testify in a language other than English and the court will provide an interpreter who translates the witnesses testimony for the jury. Jurors are instructed to rely solely on the interpreter's translation but the state is concerned that a juror who is proficient in the language spoken by the witness will rely on their own understanding of the witness' testimony and not the official translation. There is no legislative history indicating or suggesting a contrary purpose for the statute. Under these circumstances, if challenged, would the Court use rational basis analysis?

Skyline College is a public university that competes in Division III of the NCAA. It strictly forbids female students from trying out for or playing on the university's football team. If challenged on Equal Protection grounds, would the Court use intermediate scrutiny analysis?