Which situation requires a court to apply strict scrutiny when determining a statute's constitutionality?

Strict scrutiny is a high standard of judicial review that courts use when evaluating laws that potentially infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications. One of these fundamental rights is the right to free speech, particularly political speech, which is considered essential for a functioning democracy.

When a statute restricts political speech, the court must apply strict scrutiny because political speech is at the core of the First Amendment protections. The government has to show that the law serves a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest in the least restrictive way possible. This means that if a law imposes a burden on political expression, it is subjected to rigorous examination to ensure that such a limitation is justified.

In contrast, the other scenarios provided do not meet the criteria for strict scrutiny. While treating men and women differently does involve a level of scrutiny (intermediate scrutiny typically applies), it is not as stringent as strict scrutiny. Regulation of professions and restriction on advertising may also involve certain legal evaluations but do not inherently involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications that trigger strict scrutiny. Thus, the correct answer is indeed the situation where the statute restricts political speech, as it directly engages the fundamental right of free expression.