Also known as: mere rationality review · mere-rationality-review · rational basis review · rational basis scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A deferential standard of judicial review under which a law or other governmental action is upheld if it is rationally related to any legitimate government interest. The classification or regulation need not be the most precise or effective means of advancing the interest and may be underinclusive or overinclusive.
Miles Montgomery, a fifty-one-year-old police officer, challenges a state statute requiring retirement at age fifty. The statute is upheld because the age limit is rationally related to the legitimate goal of maintaining a physically capable force even though some officers remain fit beyond fifty.
Maria Morales, a national of a majority-Muslim country, seeks entry to the United States for pilot training. An executive order barring nationals from designated countries is upheld because the order recites a national-security purpose that is rationally related to the restrictions despite earlier statements suggesting improper motive.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Megan Moore is prosecuted under a federal statute prohibiting firearms within one thousand feet of a school. The statute is invalidated because possession of a gun near a school lacks a sufficient connection to interstate commerce and therefore exceeds congressional power even under deferential review.
Monica Morgan, a state employee over age forty, sues under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for money damages. The suit is dismissed because age classifications receive only rational-basis review and Congress lacked authority under Section Five to abrogate state sovereign immunity for such claims.
Mina Mehta challenges a school district policy that assigns students to schools based on race to achieve racial balance. The policy is struck down because racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny rather than mere-rationality review and the plan is not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
Melanie Morris, a state judge facing mandatory retirement at age seventy, challenges the age limit. The requirement is upheld because age is not a suspect classification and the rule is rationally related to the legitimate objective of ensuring an energetic judiciary.
Mere-rationality review applies to classifications that are neither suspect nor quasi-suspect and that do not burden fundamental rights. Age, alienage classifications by the federal government, and most economic or social-welfare regulations receive this deferential standard.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under mere-rationality review a law may be underinclusive or overinclusive so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate purpose. Courts defer to legislative judgments and do not require the most precise fit between means and ends.
Supporting sources
Mere-rationality review requires only a rational relationship to a legitimate interest and places the burden on the challenger. Intermediate scrutiny demands a substantial relationship to an important interest, and strict scrutiny requires narrow tailoring to a compelling interest. Both shift the burden to the government.
Supporting sources
No. When the governmental action states a legitimate purpose that is rationally related to the classification or restriction, stray statements suggesting animus do not invalidate the action under mere-rationality review, particularly in immigration and foreign-affairs contexts.
Supporting sources
…the ground that "[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality . . . indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny"); Milner v. Apfel , 148 F. 3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that "[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality . . . rather than confined…