Also known as: rational basis review · rational basis test · rational basis scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of judicial review under which a law or classification is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Courts applying this standard defer to legislative judgments and uphold measures even if they are underinclusive or overinclusive. The classification need not be the most precise or effective means of achieving the objective.
Rajesh Rao, a fifty-one-year-old police officer, challenges a state statute requiring retirement at age fifty. The statute rests on the state's interest in maintaining a physically capable force. A court upholds the law because the age limit bears a rational relationship to that interest even though Rao remains fit.
Rina Rahman, a pilot trainee from a designated country, sues to enjoin an executive order barring entry of trainees from certain nations. The order cites airport security risks and states a national-security purpose. The court sustains the order because the restriction is rationally related to that purpose.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ricardo Rojas is prosecuted under a federal statute banning firearms within one thousand feet of a school. He moves to dismiss, arguing the statute exceeds Congress's commerce power. The court rejects the rational basis justification for the legislative judgment and invalidates the measure as exceeding Congress's power to regulate activity affecting interstate commerce.
Ronald Reed, a parent in a low-property-tax district, challenges the state's reliance on local property taxes to fund public schools. The funding system produces wide disparities between districts. The court upholds the scheme because it is rationally related to the state's interest in preserving local control over education.
Rebecca Ross, a state judge facing mandatory retirement at age seventy, sues to enjoin enforcement of the age limit. The state defends the rule as a means of ensuring judicial vigor. The court sustains the statute because the age classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest in competent judges.
Rita Russell, an unwed U.S. citizen mother, challenges a federal statute that imposes different residency requirements for transmitting citizenship to children born abroad depending on the parent's sex. The statute distinguishes between mothers and fathers. The court upholds the distinction because it is rationally related to the government's interest in ensuring a sufficient connection between the child and the United States.
Rational basis review applies to classifications that are neither suspect nor quasi-suspect and that do not burden a fundamental right. The classification is upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts shows a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.
No. When the order itself states a legitimate national security purpose that is rationally related to the restriction, courts apply rational basis review and uphold the measure even if other statements suggest an improper motive.
Yes. Under rational basis review a law may be underinclusive or overinclusive so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate purpose. Courts defer to legislative judgments about the appropriate scope of regulation.
…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…