Also known as: rationally related · legitimate government interest · rational basis · rational basis review · rational basis test
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional standard of review under which a law or government action is upheld if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental objective. Courts apply this deferential test when no fundamental right or suspect classification is at issue. The standard permits laws that are underinclusive or overinclusive so long as the connection to a permissible purpose is not arbitrary.
Ruby Rivera, a foreign-trained lawyer from a majority-Muslim country, was denied entry at a U.S. port under an executive order citing national security risks from sanctions evasion. The order recited a facially neutral security purpose and applied to nationals from designated countries. A court upheld the order because the entry restriction bore a rational relationship to the legitimate objective of protecting sensitive litigation and infrastructure.
Rebecca Ross challenged a state statute requiring spousal notification before an abortion. The provision advanced the state's interest in marital communication. A court invalidated the measure because the notification rule was not rationally related to any legitimate governmental objective once the burden on the woman's right was considered.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.
View caseA police officer challenged a department regulation limiting hairstyles and facial hair. The rule advanced the department's interest in discipline and uniformity. A court sustained the regulation because the appearance standard was rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of maintaining a professional police force.
Rowan Russell was prosecuted under a federal statute criminalizing possession of a firearm near a school. The government argued the law protected interstate commerce by preventing violence that could disrupt education. A court dismissed the indictment because the prohibition on simple intrastate possession bore no rational relationship to a legitimate national economic interest.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
A business owner challenged a city ordinance banning most exterior vehicle advertisements while allowing ads for the owner's own business. The rule advanced the city's interest in reducing traffic distractions. A court sustained the ordinance because the selective prohibition was rationally related to the legitimate objective of traffic safety.
A property owner challenged a city's taking of land for transfer to private developers under a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The plan advanced the city's interest in economic revitalization. A court upheld the taking because the condemnation was rationally related to the legitimate public purpose of increasing tax revenue and jobs.
Rational basis review requires only that the classification be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Courts defer heavily to legislative judgments and uphold laws even when they are underinclusive or overinclusive.
No. Moral disapproval of a particular relationship or class of persons does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest under rational basis review. A law criminalizing private consensual adult conduct must rest on some independent objective beyond enforcing a moral view.
…interest which is compelling," Bates v. Little Rock , 361 U. S. 516, 524. The law must be shown "necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy." McLaughlin v. Florida , 379 U. S. 184, 196. See Schneider v. Irvington , 308 U. S. 147, 161. Although the Connecticut birth-control…
…Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States , 379 U. S., at 258-259. Thus, under commerce, as under due process, adoption of rational basis review expressed the recognition that the Court had no sustainable basis for subjecting economic regulation as such to judicial policy judgments, and for the past half century the Court has no…
…essence of my position, I will not swell the United States Reports with repetition of what I have said before; and applying the rational basis test, I would uphold the Pennsylvania statute in its entirety. I must, however, respond to a few of the more outrageous arguments in today's opinion, which it is beyond human nature to leave…
…as fighting words, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the regulation of unprotected speech be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. A defamation statute that drew distinctions on the basis of political affiliation or "an ordinance prohibiting only those legally obscene works that contain criticism of the city…
…laws applicable exclusively to aliens so long as the distinction taken between aliens and citizens is not shown to be without rational basis. Patsone v. Pennsylvania, supra ; Terrace v. Thompson , 263 U. S. 197; Cockrill v. California , 268 U. S. 258; Ohio v. Deckebach , 274 U. S. 392, 396, and cases cited. The federal…
Yes. A taking satisfies the public-use requirement when it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose such as implementing a comprehensive redevelopment plan that the government reasonably believes will benefit the public.
Yes. Age is not a suspect classification, so age-based distinctions receive rational basis review and are upheld when rationally related to a legitimate objective such as ensuring physical capability for demanding jobs.
Yes. Congress's war powers permit postwar rent controls when they are rationally related to ongoing national defense needs such as preventing displacement of defense research personnel near military laboratories.