Rational basis review is the most deferential standard of constitutional review, and a law will usually be upheld if it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Why It Matters
This standard matters because many challenged laws are reviewed under it. When rational basis review applies, courts usually give the government broad room to legislate unless the law is plainly irrational.
Where It Appears
Rational basis review appears in constitutional cases when a claim does not trigger a heightened standard such as strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. It often comes up in equal protection and substantive due process analysis.
Practical Example
A business regulation is challenged as unfair. If the court uses rational basis review, it usually asks whether lawmakers could have had a legitimate reason for adopting the rule.
How It Differs From Nearby Terms
Strict scrutiny is far more demanding and usually applies when a law burdens a fundamental right or uses a suspect classification. Intermediate scrutiny is a middle standard. Rational basis review gives the government the greatest deference.
Related Terms
Knowledge Check
- Why is rational basis review called deferential? Because courts usually uphold the law if there is a reasonable link to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- Is rational basis review harder or easier for the government than strict scrutiny? It is much easier for the government than strict scrutiny.