Also known as: rational basis tests · rational basis review · rational basis scrutiny · minimum scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of judicial review under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses that upholds a law if it bears a reasonable relationship to any legitimate governmental objective. The challenger bears the burden of showing that the classification is arbitrary or irrational. Courts apply this deferential test to economic and social legislation and to classifications that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect or quasi-suspect classes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ruby Rivera, a fifty-two-year-old officer with the city police department, challenges a state statute requiring retirement at age fifty. The statute rests on the legislature's judgment that younger officers maintain peak physical performance on average. A court upholds the statute because the age line is rationally related to the legitimate goal of maintaining an effective police force.
Roger Ramirez, a national of a designated country, seeks entry to the United States for pilot training. The President has issued an order barring nationals from several majority-Muslim countries on national-security grounds. A court sustains the order because the stated security purpose is rationally related to the restrictions even though some statements by the President suggest improper motive.
Raphael Rivera is prosecuted under a federal statute banning possession of a firearm in a school zone. He argues that Congress lacked authority to enact the prohibition. A court applies rational basis review to the commerce-power claim but invalidates the statute because Congress could not rationally conclude that gun possession near schools affects interstate commerce.
Rowan Russell, a physician, challenges a state law imposing informed-consent and waiting-period requirements on abortion providers. She contends that the rules lack any rational connection to maternal health. A court sustains the statute because the requirements are rationally related to the legitimate state interest in ensuring informed choice.
Ryan Roberts, a student in a property-poor school district, challenges the state's reliance on local property taxes to fund public education. He argues that the resulting disparities violate equal protection. A court upholds the system because the funding method is rationally related to the legitimate interest in preserving local control over schools.
Ralph Richardson, an out-of-state insurer, challenges a state statute granting tax preferences only to domestic insurance companies. He claims the distinction is arbitrary. A court sustains the statute because the legislature could rationally conclude that favoring in-state insurers promotes the legitimate goal of encouraging local investment.
A court applies rational basis review to economic or social legislation and to classifications that do not involve a fundamental right or a suspect or quasi-suspect class such as race or gender. The test is the default standard whenever no heightened scrutiny is triggered.
The challenger must demonstrate that the classification is arbitrary or irrational. The government need not prove that the law is the best means of achieving its objective or even that the legislature actually considered the purpose advanced in litigation.
…turns on commercial character, the Court gestures toward two other considerations that it might sometime entertain in applying rational basis scrutiny (apart from a statutory obligation to supply independent proof of a jurisdictional element): does the congressional statute deal with subjects of traditional state regulation, and does the…
…essence of my position, I will not swell the United States Reports with repetition of what I have said before; and applying the
…467 U. S. 229, 241 (1984); see also Berman v. Parker , 348 U. S. 26 (1954). This deferential standard of review echoes the rational
…of unconstitutional grounds. Pp. 30–32. (d) On the few occasions where the Court has struck down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny, a common thread has been that the laws at issue were “divorced from any factual context from which [the Court] could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests.” Romer v.…
…it suggests that parts of the Court’s analysis used in this case will not be carried over to traditional “rational basis
Courts give substantial deference and will uphold a law even if it is underinclusive or overinclusive so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate purpose. A court may hypothesize a legitimate purpose that the legislature could have had in mind.
Yes, though it is rare. A law fails when the classification rests on no legitimate purpose or when the classification is so arbitrary that no rational relationship exists between the means and any conceivable legitimate end.
No. Courts still apply at most rational basis review and give substantial deference to the political branches when reviewing entry restrictions or similar measures grounded in national security.