Also known as: rational basis review · rational basis scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A deferential standard of judicial review under which a law is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The standard permits classifications that are underinclusive or overinclusive and requires only minimal justification from the government.
Rita Russell, a physically fit 51-year-old officer, challenges a city rule forcing retirement at age 50. The court applies relaxed scrutiny and upholds the rule because the age limit is rationally related to the legitimate goal of maintaining a capable force, even though some older officers remain fit.
Rina Rahman, a national from a majority-Muslim country, sues after an executive order blocks her entry on national-security grounds. The court applies relaxed scrutiny, defers to the political branches in immigration matters, and upholds the order because it states a rational connection to security despite earlier statements suggesting bias.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ruby Rivera, a parent in a district using race-based student assignments, challenges the policy. The court declines to apply relaxed scrutiny and instead demands strict scrutiny because the classification rests on race rather than a category receiving only deferential review.
Roland Rhodes is prosecuted under a federal statute banning guns near schools. The court refuses relaxed scrutiny and strikes the law because Congress lacked a rational basis under the Commerce Clause for regulating purely local, non-economic activity.
Rising Sun Electronics challenges a city rule removing commercial newsracks from public sidewalks while allowing noncommercial ones. The court declines relaxed scrutiny, applies intermediate scrutiny to the commercial-speech distinction, and invalidates the regulation because it fails the required tailoring analysis.
Ridgeway Partners, a utility company, challenges a commission order banning promotional advertising. The court declines relaxed scrutiny, applies intermediate scrutiny under the commercial-speech doctrine, and invalidates the order because it fails the required justification and tailoring analysis.
A court applies relaxed scrutiny to classifications that are not suspect, such as those based on age or certain immigration distinctions. The government need only show a rational relationship to a legitimate interest, and the classification may be underinclusive or overinclusive.
Yes. Courts generally apply at most relaxed scrutiny to federal immigration and foreign-affairs measures because of deference to the political branches. A facially neutral order with a rational security purpose survives even if earlier statements suggest improper motive.
Relaxed scrutiny requires only a rational basis, while gender classifications receive intermediate scrutiny that demands an exceedingly persuasive justification and a substantial relationship to an important interest. Age or immigration rules that receive relaxed scrutiny need not meet this higher bar.
Yes. Under relaxed scrutiny a law may be overinclusive or underinclusive so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate purpose. Courts defer to legislative judgments and do not require a perfect fit between means and ends.
…the ground that "[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality . . . indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny"); Milner v. Apfel , 148 F. 3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that "[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality . . . rather than confined…