Also known as: rational relationship test · rational relations test · rational basis test · rational basis review · rational basis scrutiny
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard of judicial review under which a classification or regulation is upheld if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. Courts apply this test to classifications that do not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights and defer to legislative judgments so long as the measure is not arbitrary or wholly unrelated to its stated purpose.
The city council enacts an ordinance requiring all police officers to retire at age fifty. Officer Rebecca Ross, who remains physically fit, challenges the rule. The court upholds the ordinance because the age limit advances the legitimate goal of maintaining a capable force and satisfies the rational relation test.
The President issues an order limiting visas for nationals from several countries identified as posing cybersecurity risks. Rajesh Rao, a software engineer from one of the listed countries, sues claiming religious animus. The court applies the rational relation test and sustains the order because it states a national security purpose rationally connected to the restrictions.
A state funds public schools primarily through local property taxes, resulting in lower per-pupil spending in poorer districts. Raymond Ramos, a parent in a low-wealth district, sues alleging unequal treatment. The court upholds the system under the rational relation test because the funding method rationally advances the legitimate interest in local control of education.
In the summer of 1968 Mexican-American parents whose children attended elementary and secondary schools in the Edgewood Independent School District in San Antonio Texas brought a class action. They sued on behalf of schoolchildren throughout the state who were members of minority groups or who were poor and resided in school districts having a low property tax base. Named as defendants were the State Board of Education the Commissioner of Education the State Attorney General and the Bexar County Board of Trustees. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. A three-judge court was impaneled in January 1969. The Texas system of financing public education originated with the state's first constitution in 1845. It evolved through constitutional amendments permitting local school districts to levy ad valorem taxes for school buildings and maintenance. These local revenues were supplemented by distributions from the state's Permanent School Fund established in 1854 and the Available School Fund. In the late 1940s the legislature enacted the Minimum Foundation School Program. Under the program the state supplies approximately 80 percent of the cost of teacher salaries operating expenses and transportation. Each district contributes the remaining 20 percent through a Local Fund Assignment. The assignment is calculated by an economic index reflecting relative taxpaying ability. Every district also levies additional local property taxes beyond the assignment to supplement its foundation grant. For the 1967-1968 school year the Edgewood Independent School District had an average assessed property value of $5960 per pupil and a median family income of $4686. It raised $26 per pupil through local taxation at a rate of $1.05 per $100 of assessed valuation. It received $222 per pupil from the Foundation Program and obtained $108 in federal funds for a total of $356 per pupil. By comparison the Alamo Heights Independent School District had an assessed property value exceeding $49000 per pupil and a median family income of $8001. It raised $333 per pupil locally at a rate of $0.85 per $100 received $225 from the Foundation Program and $36 in federal funds for a total of $594 per pupil. Similar disparities in per-pupil expenditures existed throughout the state. They were largely attributable to differences in the amount of taxable property within each district. In December 1971 the three-judge District Court rendered judgment holding the Texas school finance system unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State appealed. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1972 to consider the constitutional questions presented.
View caseCongress bans possession of firearms within one thousand feet of a school. Robert Rivera, charged under the statute, argues the law exceeds federal power. The court applies the rational relation test in assessing the commerce power claim and finds the prohibition lacks a rational relationship to interstate commerce.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseA state imposes higher taxes on out-of-state insurance companies than on domestic insurers. Reliance Insurance challenges the tax as discriminatory. The court sustains the statute under the rational relation test because the distinction rationally furthers the legitimate goal of encouraging local investment in the insurance industry.
Since 1955 Alabama has maintained a domestic preference tax statute that taxes the gross premiums received by insurance companies on policies issued in the State. Foreign life insurance companies pay a tax at a rate of three percent, and foreign companies selling other types of insurance pay at a rate of four percent. All domestic insurance companies pay at a rate of only one percent. The statute permits domestic insurers to exclude from taxable premium income all premiums received from policies issued in other States in which they are not licensed. Foreign insurers may reduce but never eliminate the tax differential by investing prescribed percentages of their worldwide assets in specified Alabama assets and securities. Appellants are a group of insurance companies incorporated outside Alabama. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. represents the life insurance claimants, and Prudential Property and Casualty Co. represents the nonlife claimants. In 1981 appellants filed claims with the Alabama Department of Insurance seeking refunds of taxes paid for the tax years 1977 through 1980. They contended that the domestic preference tax statute as applied to them violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Commissioner of Insurance denied all claims on July 8, 1981. Appellants appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The court consolidated the appeals and selected two lead cases. On cross-motions for summary judgment the court ruled on May 17, 1982 that the statute was constitutional. After the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the finding of legitimate state purposes but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on rational relationship, appellants waived their right to an evidentiary hearing. The Alabama Supreme Court ultimately entered judgment for the State and intervenors. The Supreme Court of the United States noted probable jurisdiction in 1984. It consolidated the cases and heard argument on October 31, 1984.
View caseCongress amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to allow private damages suits against states. Roberto Reyes, a state employee denied promotion because of age, sues for damages. The court holds that the remedy fails the rational relation test congruence requirement because age classifications receive only rational basis review and Congress identified no pattern of unconstitutional state conduct.
In 1967 Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which initially applied only to private employers. In 1974 Congress amended the Act through the Fair Labor Standards Amendments to extend its substantive requirements to the States. Congress redefined the term employer to include a State or political subdivision of a State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State. The same legislation also amended the incorporated Fair Labor Standards Act enforcement provision to authorize suits against any employer including a public agency in federal or state court. In December 1994 Roderick MacPherson and Marvin Narz, associate professors ages 57 and 58 at the University of Montevallo in Alabama, filed suit alleging age discrimination, retaliation for filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and disparate impact from an evaluation system. In April 1995 J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., and other current and former faculty and librarians over age 40 at Florida State University and Florida International University filed suit against the Florida Board of Regents alleging that the failure to allocate previously agreed market-adjustment salary funds had a disparate impact on employees with longer service records. In May 1996 Wellington Dickson filed suit against the Florida Department of Corrections alleging failure to promote him because of his age and in retaliation for grievances concerning age discrimination. The District Court in the MacPherson case granted the university's motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The District Courts in the Kimel and Dickson cases denied the state defendants' motions to dismiss. The United States intervened in all three cases. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and held that the ADEA does not abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
View caseThe rational relation test applies to classifications that do not involve suspect classes such as race or national origin and do not burden fundamental rights. Gender classifications receive intermediate scrutiny while age and most economic distinctions receive rational basis review.
No. In the immigration and foreign affairs context the court focuses on whether the measure states a facially legitimate purpose rationally related to that purpose even when statements suggest animus. The test does not require proof of perfect motives.
Yes. Laws may be imperfectly tailored so long as they are rationally related to a legitimate purpose. Courts permit legislative first steps and administrative convenience justifications under this standard.
Congress may enforce the Fourteenth Amendment only through remedies that are congruent and proportional to identified constitutional violations. Because age and disability classifications receive rational basis review, broad damages remedies often exceed that standard.
…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…