Rational Basis Test

Rational Basis Test

A judicial standard of review that examines whether a legislature had a reasonable and not an Arbitrary basis for enacting a particular statute.

Courts employ various standards of review to assess whether legislative acts violate constitutionally protected interests. The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated the rational basis test for those cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an arbitrary or irrational decision. When a court employs the rational basis test, it usually upholds the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch.

A law that touches on a constitutionally protected interest must be rationally related to furthering a legitimate government interest. In applying the rational basis test, courts begin with a strong presumption that the law or policy under review is valid. The Burden of Proof is on the party making the challenge to show that the law or policy is unconstitutional. To meet this burden, the party must demonstrate that the law or policy does not have a rational basis. This is difficult to prove, because a court can usually find some reasonable ground for sustaining the constitutionality of the challenged law or policy.

For example, a state law that prohibits performing dentistry without a license deprives laypersons of their constitutionally protected rights to make contracts freely and discriminates against those unable or unwilling to obtain a license. But a court would undoubtedly uphold the constitutionality of the law because the license requirement is a rational means of advancing the state's legitimate interests in public health and safety.

For a hundred years, the rational basis test has been part of the U.S. Supreme Court's review of cases that alleged denial of Equal Protection of the laws. State and federal laws are filled with discriminations, or classifications, of various kinds. A law that would apply universally and treat all persons equally is virtually impossible to craft. Because all laws classify by imposing special burdens or by conferring special benefits on some people and not others, there are always persons who are displeased. For example, when a state limits the privilege to purchase and consume intoxicating liquor to persons twenty-one and older, it is engaging in Age Discrimination. But a court would find this was not a denial of equal protection because the legislature has a legitimate interest in restricting the drinking age and the law advances that interest in a rational way.

Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court, in Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 17 S. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666 (1897), first articulated the rational basis test under equal protection. The Court stated that "it is not within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to withhold from States the power of classification." However, the Court continued, "it must appear" that a classification is "based upon some reasonable ground—some difference which bears a just and proper relation to the attempted classification—and is not a mere arbitrary selection."

A person challenging a law on equal protection grounds has a very difficult task. The Supreme Court has used the rational basis standard to practice judicial restraint and to limit its ability to overturn legislation. In areas of social and economic policy, where constitutionally suspect classifications (race, religion, alienage, or national origin) are not at issue, nor are any fundamental constitutional rights at stake, a law must be upheld if there is any "reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification" (United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 101 S. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 2d 368 [1980]).

In addition, the Court does not require a legislature to articulate its reasons for enacting a statute, holding that "[i]t is entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature" (FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 [1993]). Thus, the Court stated, a "legislative choice is not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data" (FCC v. Beach Communications). This means that a court is permitted to find a rational basis for a law, even if it is one that was not articulated by the legislature.

Because of these factors, application of the rational basis test usually results in the upholding of the law. Nevertheless, it remains the primary test for determining the constitutionality of classifications that encroach on economic interests.

Further readings

Johnson, Virginia H. 2001. "Application of the Rational Basis Test to Treaty-Implementing Legislation: The Need for a More Stringent Standard of Review." Cardozo Law Review 23 (November).

Irr, Melissa. 2001. "United States v. Morrison: An Analysis of the Diminished Effect of Congressional Findings in Commerce Clause Jurisprudence and a Criticism of the Abandonment of the Rational Basis Test." University of Pittsburgh Law Review 62 (summer).

Cross-references

Fifth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment; Judicial Review.

References in periodicals archive ?
The court should assert that the rational basis test does not require courts to be willfully oblivious of disreputable legislative motives.
Despite the preponderance of evidence finding that occupational licensing often harms consumers and restricts occupational opportunity, some US courts have upheld licensure laws using the rational basis test. The rational basis test was first used by the Supreme Court in 1877 in Munn v.
(29.) See Clark Neily, No Such Thing: Litigating Under the Rational Basis Test, 1 N.Y.U.
Asked about that after his own press conference, Ellison said he would apply the rational basis test to legislation signed into law.
But he stated that an appellate court could reach the same conclusion using the rational basis test, because the state cannot demonstrate that HB 959, as applied to these plaintiffs, is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
Humphreys first analyzed the standard for reviewing sexual orientation issues, concluding that a rational basis test applied whether the issue was a rights violation or Hawkins status as parent.
(2) Erwin Chemerinsky, The Rational Basis Test Is Constitutional
In this case, the majority found "that the caps in [section]766.118 violate equal protection under the rational basis test because the arbitrary reduction of compensation without regard to the severity of the injury does not bear a rational relationship to the Legislature's stated interest in addressing the medical malpractice crisis."
The one thing Brennan did not originally plan to do was apply the rational basis test, in either vanilla or "plus" form, (79) although rational basis plus scrutiny proved itself more than able to the task of invalidating a statute that he first intended to dispose of on fundamental-rights grounds.
[n]othing in the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence deviates from the essential attributes of the rational basis test, which affirms a vital principle of democratic self-government and it is not the court's duty to second guess legislative factfinding, "improve" on or "cleanse" the legislative process by allowing relitigation of the facts that led to the passage of a law.
The predominant standard, the rational basis test, (1) reflects a fundamental policy determination that standard upholds.
Traditionally, the states retained "broad discretion" under equal protection rules "to classify as long as its classification ha[d] a reasonable basis." (90) Accordingly, a statute under review that did not implicate a suspect class or fundamental right would be scrutinized under the rational basis test. (91) Courts are reluctant to overturn a law using the rational basis test unless the varying treatment of different groups serves no legitimate purpose.