Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause
Justice Stevens, concurring, objected to the Court's test, arguing that it is " tantamount to no review at all." (See "Should the Rational Basis Test Have Bite ?"). a test less intensive than strict scrutiny or an intermediate review that involves a determination of whether a statutory or regulatory classification of persons (as by . In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts Rational basis review tests whether the government's actions are " rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest. The Supreme Court has.
Rational basis review - Wikipedia
Imagine that you are a judge. When you think of the U.
Constitution, you probably think of a big list of rules that everyone is expected to follow. In fact, this perception though a bit simplistic is pretty accurate. As a judge, it's your job to understand and apply those rules to any number of legal situations. The Constitution, with its seven articles and its twenty-seven amendments, is the supreme law of land.
Rational Basis Test: Definition & Application | balamut.info
The task of interpreting and applying this venerable document belongs to the judicial branch of the government, which encompasses the court system. The court system must apply rules of interpretation to address questions of constitutional law. These rules are known as standards of review, and they are used to determine whether a particular law or government action is constitutional.
One standard of review that is used frequently by courts to resolve constitutional quandaries is the rational basis test. Under this traditional test, a state law must be upheld if it or the classification it contains is rationally related to any legitimate interest of the state.
Moreover, the legitimate interest of the state need not be one that actually motivated legislators to enact the legislation.Equal Protection: Crash Course Government and Politics #29
It is enough if the interest is now advanced and that it is "conceivable. In some cases, however, when the disadvantaged group is a sympathetic one and the individual interest affected is especially strong, the rational basis test is applied differently.
Rational basis review
The cases linked to this page are illustrative. Plyler v Doe involved a challenge to a Texas law that denied to the children of illegal aliens a public education.
United States see box at left. Usually, strict scrutiny will result in invalidation of the challenged classification--but not always, as illustrated by Korematsu v. Loving v Virginia produces a more typical result when racial classifications are involved: For more on the Loving case, here is a link to a trailer for HBO's documentary on the case: Skinner v Oklahoma considers an Oklahoma law requiring the sterilization of persons convicted of three or more felonies involving moral turpitude "three strikes and you're snipped".
In Justice Douglas's opinion invalidating the law we see the origins of the higher-tier analysis that the Court applies to rights of a "fundamental nature" such as marriage and procreation. Skinner thus casts doubt on the continuing validity of the oft-quoted dictum of Justice Holmes in a case Buck v Bell considering the forced sterilization of certain mental incompetents: Separate pages on this website deal with these issues.
Religion either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis 4. Alienage unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights 1.