Rational Basis Review

Definition

Rational basis review is a standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative or executive actions that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Under this standard, a law will be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, making it the most lenient form of scrutiny applied in constitutional law.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Rational basis review is primarily applied in cases involving economic regulation and social welfare legislation, where courts generally defer to the legislature's judgment.
2. Under rational basis review, the burden of proof is on the challenger to demonstrate that there is no conceivable legitimate purpose for the law.
3. This standard does not require the government to prove that the law is necessary or the best means to achieve its goals; it simply needs a rational connection.
4. Courts often look at the legislative history and purpose of the statute when applying rational basis review, even if those purposes are not explicitly stated in the law.
5. Rational basis review has been criticized for allowing potentially discriminatory laws to remain in effect, as it sets a low bar for legislative justification.

Review Questions

• How does rational basis review compare with strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny in terms of judicial evaluation?
  • Rational basis review is the most lenient standard among the three. While strict scrutiny requires that a law serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored, and intermediate scrutiny necessitates an important government interest with substantial relation to the law, rational basis only demands a legitimate government interest and a reasonable connection. This difference means that laws under rational basis review are more likely to be upheld compared to those subjected to stricter standards.
• In what types of cases is rational basis review typically applied, and what implications does this have for legislative actions?
  • Rational basis review is typically applied in cases involving economic regulations and social welfare legislation. This means that courts often defer to legislative judgments about what constitutes a legitimate government interest. The implication is that lawmakers have considerable leeway in crafting laws, as they only need to demonstrate some rational justification for their actions, leading to fewer successful constitutional challenges against such laws.
• Evaluate the impact of rational basis review on equal protection claims regarding discrimination. How might this standard allow certain laws to persist despite potential inequality?
  • Rational basis review significantly impacts equal protection claims because it permits laws that may appear discriminatory as long as they can be justified by a legitimate government interest. This low threshold allows many statutes, even those with unequal effects on certain groups, to withstand judicial scrutiny. Consequently, critics argue that this leniency can perpetuate systemic inequalities and discrimination since laws need only a plausible reason for their existence rather than being fair or equitable.

Related terms

Strict Scrutiny: A heightened standard of review used by courts when evaluating laws that infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, requiring the government to show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored.

Intermediate Scrutiny: A standard of review that falls between rational basis and strict scrutiny, used for laws that discriminate based on gender or legitimacy, requiring the government to demonstrate an important government interest and that the law is substantially related to that interest.

Legitimate Government Interest: An objective or purpose that is acceptable and reasonable for the government to pursue, which forms the basis for justifying a law under rational basis review.