Also known as:arbitrary & unreasonable · arbitrary or unreasonable
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Government action or classification that lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate public objective and is therefore invalid under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Federal Housing Tax Credit Residency Rule
Congress enacts a tax credit program that gives landlords immediate benefits for renting to low-income citizens but requires eight years of lawful permanent residency for noncitizens. Luis, a five-year resident denied housing, challenges the rule. The classification survives because it rationally advances integration and subsidy management goals without arbitrary distinction.
Zoning Ordinance Limiting Household Composition
East Cleveland adopts an ordinance restricting single-family homes to nuclear families. Anita Ali, who lives with her grandson and another relative, faces eviction proceedings. The ordinance is struck down because it bears no substantial relation to health or welfare and operates arbitrarily against extended family arrangements.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)
Criminal Prohibition on Private Conduct
Texas enforces a statute criminalizing private consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex. Alan Ackerman and his partner are prosecuted after police enter their home. The law fails because it imposes an arbitrary and unreasonable intrusion on liberty interests protected by due process.
Lawrence v. Texas539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Coastal Development Permit Condition
The California Coastal Commission grants Nollan a building permit only if they dedicate a public easement across their beachfront lot. The condition is invalidated because it lacks any reasonable relationship to the stated public access concerns and functions as an arbitrary exaction.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987)
Municipal Zoning Restricting Land Use
Euclid adopts a zoning ordinance that prevents Ambler Realty from developing its land for industrial purposes. The company sues, claiming the restriction destroys value. The ordinance is upheld because it is not clearly arbitrary and bears a substantial relation to public health and safety.
Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed 303 (1926)
State Ban on Contraceptive Use
Connecticut prohibits the use of contraceptives even by married couples. Griswold, a physician, is convicted for providing advice and materials. The statute is invalidated as an arbitrary and unreasonable interference with the fundamental right of marital privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What level of scrutiny applies to federal alienage classifications under this standard?+
Federal alienage classifications receive rational basis review and are upheld if they are not arbitrary or unreasonable. This deferential test stems from Congress's plenary power over immigration and allows distinctions that rationally advance fiscal or integration objectives.
Supporting sources
How does the standard differ when applied to zoning regulations?+
In zoning cases the standard requires that an ordinance not be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and that it bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Courts will invalidate restrictions that lack this connection even if they affect property values.
Supporting sources
Can a classification survive this standard even if it imposes hardship on some individuals?+
Yes. The test focuses on whether the classification as a whole is rationally related to a legitimate goal, not on whether it produces harsh results for particular persons. Courts uphold rules that are reasonable in design even when they exclude contributors who fall just short of durational requirements.
Supporting sources
What evidence shows that government action is arbitrary and unreasonable?+
Action is arbitrary when it lacks any plausible connection to a legitimate objective or when it imposes rigid barriers that contradict the stated purpose, such as excluding individuals whose circumstances already fulfill the policy goals. Inconsistent application or absence of individualized consideration can also demonstrate unreasonableness.
Supporting sources
272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed 303 (1926)Property
…regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different…