Does defendant have to prove that the disparate treatment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was necessary to protect society?

Furthermore, defendant argues that the People failed to show that the "disparate treatment between SVP[']s, MDO[']s and NGI[']s was necessary to protect society." Relying on Bernal v. Fainter (1984) 467 U.S. 216 (Bernal) and Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330, defendant argues that "[t]he element of necessity under the strict scrutiny standard required that the prosecution show that the disparate treatment of SVP[']s constituted the least restrictive means possible." Defendant contends that the McKee II court misapplied the strict scrutiny test by improperly "reject[ing] the need for the prosecution" to "show that the disparate treatment of SVP[']s constituted the least restrictive means possible."