Also known as: suspect category · suspect classification · suspect classifications · suspect class · suspect classes
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Classifications based on immutable characteristics or a history of purposeful discrimination that trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
Scott Summers, a physically fit 51-year-old officer, challenged a state law requiring retirement at age 50. The court applied rational basis review because age is not a suspect category. The law survived because it rationally advanced the legitimate goal of maintaining a capable force.
Simon Stern, an illegitimate child, sought to inherit from his father under a state statute that barred such claims. The court applied heightened scrutiny to the illegitimacy classification. The law failed because it was not substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Steven Silva, a student in a poor district, challenged a property-tax system that produced lower per-pupil spending than in wealthy districts. The court held that wealth is not a suspect category. The financing scheme survived rational basis review as rationally related to local control.
Sydney Santos, a long-term lawful permanent resident, was denied a federal benefit available only to citizens. The court applied rational basis review because alienage classifications by the federal government are not treated as suspect. The rule survived as rationally related to administrative efficiency.
Samantha Stone sought a permit for a group home for persons with intellectual disabilities. The city denied it under an ordinance requiring special permits for such facilities. The court refused to treat mental disability as a suspect category and upheld the denial under rational basis review.
Selena Singh, a terminally ill patient, challenged a state ban on physician-assisted suicide as discriminating against those near death. The court held that the classification was not suspect. The ban survived rational basis review as rationally related to preserving life.
Race is a suspect category that triggers strict scrutiny. The government must show the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored.
No. Age receives only rational basis review because it is not immutable in the same way as race and does not carry the same history of purposeful discrimination.
No. Wealth is not a suspect category. Disparities resulting from wealth-based classifications receive rational basis review.
A facially neutral law receives strict scrutiny only if the plaintiff proves it was adopted with discriminatory purpose against a suspect category.
…protection claim must fail, since it is not to be judged by the strict scrutiny standard employed when a fundamental interest or suspect classification is involved, see, e. g. , Dunn v. Blumstein , 405 U. S. 330 (1972), and Korematsu v. United States , 323 U. S. 214 (1944), or by the somewhat less strict standard of Craig v. Boren ,…