 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008) |
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (September 2009) |
Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, is the lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts deciding constitutional issues through judicial review. The higher levels are typically referred to as intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Although the default level of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis review does not apply in situations where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated.
Contents |
Nature of the test
Rational basis review asks whether the governmental action at issue is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government. Stated another way, the standard requires that governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.[1] Under this very deferential standard of review, the "legitimate" interest does not have to be the government's actual interest in the matter; rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a legitimate state interest served by the challenged action, it will pass constitutional muster.[2]
In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test applies not only to the federal government, but also to the state and local government (via the Fourteenth Amendment). It also applies to both legislative and executive action whether those actions be of a substantive or procedural nature. The test has its origins in the means-ends test used in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.
Generally, to pass the rational basis test, the government need not make any argument. Rather, the opposing party must negate "every conceivable rationale" for the challenged regulation.
Rational Basis with Bite
Application of the rational basis test almost always means a ruling favorable to the government, as the Court will normally show deference under the rational basis test. However, in certain cases where a "quasi-suspect" class is involved and the interest involved is also strong, the Supreme Court seems to give the rational basis test more "bite" or "teeth". In Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Plyler v. Doe, and Romer v. Evans, the Court purported to use the rational basis test, and yet it overturned the challenged law in each of these cases.
The difference between the "rational basis" test and the "rational basis with bite" test is whether the court tries to come up with its own ideas for legitimate government interests, or whether the court insists that the government have already stated that interest prior to the ruling.[citation needed] Practically, the Court almost never strikes down a law under rational basis review; when it does, the case is often said to have been decided using "rational basis with bite."
See also
References
- ^ United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
- ^ Sullivan, Kathleen M. & Gunther Gerald. Constitutional Law. Foundation Press, New York, NY. 16th Ed. Chapter 9 (2007).
Sullivan, Kathleen M. & Gunther, Gerald. Constitutional Law. Foundation Press, New York, NY. 16th ed. (2007).
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
