Rational Basis Review

Definition

Rational basis review is a standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws and government actions that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications. It requires that the government demonstrates that a law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, making it the most lenient standard of review. This standard is often applied in cases involving economic regulations and social welfare laws, ensuring that the government can justify its actions without needing to meet a higher level of scrutiny.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Rational basis review is often used in cases involving economic regulation, where courts generally defer to legislative judgment.
2. To survive rational basis review, a law must simply have a legitimate purpose and be rationally related to that purpose; there is no requirement for a compelling interest.
3. Most laws challenged under rational basis review are upheld by courts, as this standard places a low burden on the government.
4. This standard can apply to a wide range of cases, including those involving classifications based on age, disability, and economic status.
5. If a plaintiff challenges a law under rational basis review and fails to show that there is no rational basis for the law, the court will typically rule in favor of the government.

Review Questions

• How does rational basis review differ from strict scrutiny in terms of judicial evaluation?
  • Rational basis review differs from strict scrutiny primarily in its level of scrutiny applied by courts. While strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that a law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, rational basis review only requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. This makes rational basis much more lenient, allowing more laws to be upheld compared to those subjected to strict scrutiny.
• Discuss how rational basis review impacts the legal standing of economic regulations in relation to individual rights.
  • Rational basis review significantly impacts economic regulations by allowing governments considerable latitude in enacting laws related to commerce and social welfare. Under this standard, courts typically uphold economic regulations as long as they are seen as having some rational connection to legitimate governmental interests. This has led to fewer successful challenges against economic regulations compared to laws infringing on fundamental rights, as individuals must prove that there is no conceivable legitimate purpose for such laws.
• Evaluate the implications of rational basis review on marginalized groups seeking equal protection under the law.
  • The implications of rational basis review on marginalized groups can be quite significant. Since this standard is relatively easy for the government to satisfy, it can lead to laws and policies that may perpetuate inequality or discrimination being upheld. For example, classifications based on age or disability might not receive the same level of scrutiny as those involving race or gender. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of equal protection under the law for vulnerable populations, as courts may be less likely to strike down laws that disadvantage these groups if they pass the rational basis test.

Related terms

Strict Scrutiny: The highest standard of judicial review used by courts when a law or government action infringes on fundamental rights or involves suspect classifications, requiring a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means.

Intermediate Scrutiny: A standard of judicial review that requires the government to show that a law is substantially related to an important governmental interest, typically applied in cases involving gender discrimination.

Equal Protection Clause:

A provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction equal protection under the law, serving as a foundation for many judicial reviews, including rational basis review.