All Federal · Constitutional Questions
This entry explores the Rational Basis standard of review applied to constitutional questions in federal courts.
Source: Rational Basis
Rational Basis Review is a standard of judicial review that upholds laws or government actions unless they are not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It is the most lenient standard and does not require a specific justification other than the establishment of a legitimate governmental aim.
This standard is typically applied in cases involving economic regulations or social welfare legislation, as well as when evaluating classifications that do not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights. If the challenged government action does not burden a fundamental right or significantly disadvantage a protected class, Rational Basis Review is the applicable standard.
The Supreme Court upheld a New York City ordinance regulating advertising trucks, finding it was rationally related to the legitimate goal of reducing visual clutter.
The Court upheld an Oklahoma law regulating optical services, concluding that it was rationally related to the state’s interest in protecting public health.
Rational Basis Review is less stringent than both Intermediate Scrutiny and Strict Scrutiny standards. Intermediate Scrutiny applies to classifications based on gender or legitimacy, requiring an important government interest and a substantial relationship, while Strict Scrutiny is used for suspect classes and fundamental rights, requiring a compelling government interest and narrow tailoring.