Rational basis review:
Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, is the lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts deciding constitutional issues through judicial review. The higher levels are typically referred to as intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Although the default level of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis review does not apply in situations where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated.
Rational basis review asks whether the governmental action at issue is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government. Stated another way, the standard requires that governmental action be "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest. Under this very deferential standard of review, the "legitimate" interest does not have to be the government's actual interest in the matter; rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a legitimate state interest served by the challenged action, it will pass constitutional muster.
In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test applies not only to the federal government, but also to the state and local government (via the Fourteenth Amendment). It also applies to both legislative and executive action whether those actions be of a substantive or procedural nature. The test has its origins in the means-ends test used in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.
Generally, to pass the rational basis test, the government need only make one argument. For example, in McCulloch, the argument was that the creation of a bank is within the rights of the Congress because such creation is a reasonable means for regulating commerce. Therefore, the court held that it was constitutional for the government to create a bank.
[edit] Why is the test used?
Tests such as the rational basis test may appear to some laypeople to be without basis in the U.S. Constitution. However, the rational basis test actually stems from a practical interpretation of the necessary and proper clause. The most obvious interpretation to most people is that Congress can only act in a way that is necessary. Given this interpretation though, Congress would be almost completely stifled in its ability to pass laws. Rarely is an action absolutely necessary.
Furthermore, a paradox can be created through this "layman" approach to the necessary and proper clause. If Congress could choose means A, B, or C, to further the objective of regulating commerce, which means should Congress choose? Technically, none of the choices are necessary. Congress should not choose A, because with other alternatives (B and C), A is not necessary. By the same logic, Congress could also not choose means B, or C. Therefore, this strict interpretation of the necessary and proper clause leaves Congress nearly unable to achieve some of its most basic functions.
The rational basis test allows Congress to choose from any of the alternatives that legitimately further the goal of regulating commerce. The necessity and propriety of legislation is the accepted interpretation of the necessary and proper clause. To inquire into necessity and propriety of the specifics of the legislation would be so constrictive as to crush the legislative branch of government.
Thus, the rational basis test allows courts to defer to the other branches on appropriate government action. The rational basis test is the default test for courts deciding questions of law regarding government action. If a government action conflicts with another constitutional value, then judges may turn to a higher level of scrutiny. These higher levels allow courts to review the constitutionality of governmental action. When courts use a higher level of review to declare governmental action unconstitutional, those who agree with the government's action sometimes view the court as having engaged in judicial activism. The term judicial activism in this sense typically has a negative connotation.
[edit] Rational Basis with Bite
Application of the rational basis test almost always means a ruling favorable to the government, as the Court will normally show deference under the rational basis test. However, in certain cases where a "quasi-suspect" class is involved and the interest involved is also strong, the Supreme Court seems to give the rational basis test more "bite" or "teeth". In Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Plyler v. Doe, and Romer v. Evans, the Court purported to use the rational basis test, and yet it overturned the challenged law in each of these cases.
The difference between the "rational basis" test and the "rational basis with bite" test is whether the court tries to come up with its own ideas for legitimate government interests, or whether the court insists that the government have already stated that interest prior to the ruling.[citation needed]
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
| 
