Rational Basis (pp. 609–634)

Standard: the law must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

  • The default level of review—applies unless a fundamental right is implicated or a suspect class is targeted.
  • Any government action that does not warrant a heightened level of scrutiny must still withstand rational basis—relatively easy.
  • The law will be upheld if a conceivable, legitimate government purpose is found.
    • The government need not prove the action's actual motive—there just must be some conceivable, legitimate reason.
  • The challenger has the burden of negating "every conceivable basis which might support" the classification.
    • FCC v. Beach Communications (1993).
  • Strong presumption that the law in question is constitutional; standard is highly deferential to the government.

Key Determinations

  1. Does the government have a legitimate purpose for the action?
    • Clearly legitimate: protecting public safety, health, peace, and morals.
      • New Orleans v. Dukes (1976).
    • Illegitimate: discrimination, effectuating animus against a politically vulnerable group.
  2. If so, is the action rationally related to achieving it?
    • Underinclusive laws (failing to regulate all similarly situated people) → generally allowed under rational basis. See Railway Express Agency v. New York.
    • Overinclusive laws (regulating more people than necessary) → generally allowed. See NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer.
    • Laws that are both under- and overinclusive → generally allowed. See Beazer.

Rational Basis "With Bite"

Trigger: When a law discriminates against a specific, traditionally unpopular group of people—but not those entitled to strict (race) or intermediate (sex) scrutiny—the Court will use an "elevated" version of rational basis colloquially referred to as rational basis "with bite."

  • E.g., homosexuals, transgender persons, hippies, etc.
  • Standard: there must be a heightened showing of legitimate governmental interest.
    • The Court looks much closer at the government's actual motive and will refuse to accept a flimsy or hypothetical justification.
  • A bare congressional or State desire to harm or discriminate against a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate government interest.
  • A government action will generally fail under RBWB if the Court determines it was motivated by animus (hostility, prejudice, or irrational fear)—the Court is actively looking for evidence of this animus.
  • Courts may use under-inclusiveness as evidence of animus under RBWB.

Cases Here