All Federal · Injunctions
Exploration of the rational basis standard as it pertains to injunctions in federal courts.
Source: Rational Basis
The rational basis standard of review is the most deferential standard used by courts to evaluate governmental actions and regulations. Under this standard, a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
The rational basis standard applies in cases where a plaintiff challenges a governmental action or law that does not involve a suspect classification or a fundamental right. It is often invoked in cases regarding economic regulations and other non-fundamental rights matters.
The Supreme Court upheld state regulations on the sale of glasses, finding that the law's purpose served a legitimate governmental interest, and that the regulation did not need to be the only or best means to achieve that interest.
The Court ruled that a constitutional challenge to a state law requiring involuntary commitment of individuals with mental illness was upheld under the rational basis standard, emphasizing the state's interest in protecting public health.
The rational basis standard of review is less stringent than intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Unlike intermediate scrutiny, which requires an important governmental interest, or strict scrutiny, which demands a compelling state interest, rational basis simply requires a legitimate interest with a reasonable connection to the law.