Rational Basis Review

Rational basis review is the default and most permissive standard of judicial scrutiny. It applies whenever a law does not involve a suspect or quasi-suspect classification and does not burden a fundamental right. In practice, this covers the vast majority of economic and social legislation.

Under rational basis review, the challenger bears the burden of proving the law is unconstitutional. The law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Courts apply this standard with great deference: the government need not actually articulate its purpose, and any conceivable rational basis suffices. The law may be both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, and legislative line-drawing need not be perfect.

Because of its permissiveness, rational basis review almost always results in the law being upheld. The standard reflects judicial restraint and respect for the democratic process — courts are reluctant to second-guess legislative policy choices in the economic and social sphere. Notable exceptions where laws failed rational basis review include Romer v. Evans (1996), where the Court struck down a Colorado amendment barring anti-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian individuals, and City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985), where the Court struck down a zoning ordinance targeting a group home for the intellectually disabled.

Some scholars have identified a "rational basis with bite" category for cases where the Court applies a nominally deferential standard but with heightened skepticism, often when the law appears motivated by animus toward a politically unpopular group.

Rational basis review is important on exams because it is the fallback when no heightened scrutiny applies. Students must recognize when this standard governs and understand that a law failing even rational basis review is a rare and significant event.