Rational Basis Review Flashcards
Rational Basis Standard
The statute must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Is there a legitimate governmental purpose?
A statute has a legitimate purpose if it advances traditional police powers – protecting safety, public heath, or public moral.
A statutory classification must be upheld against equal protection challenges if there is any reasonably conceivable purpose that could provide a justification for the classification, regardless of whether the legislature intended this purpose –> Conceivable Rational Basis.
Is the classification rationally related to the governmental purpose?
To survive rational basis review, a classification must bear some connection to a permissible governmental end. A classification will be considered rationally related to a permissible government purpose, even if it is it over-inclusive or under-inclusive or both.
Over-inclusive
a classification is over-inclusive if its disadvantages a large class than is needed to achieve that state’s purpose
NY Transit Authority V. Beazer (Over-inclusive example) (Methodone)
The NY Transit authority denied employment to persons using methadone as a class. The purpose of the classification is safety. This classification is over-inclusive – excludes people who have been clean and sober for awhile. (constitutional)
Under-inclusive
a classification is under-inclusive if some people are not disadvantaged even though the failure to include them in a disadvantaged category undermines achievements of the state’s purpose.
Railway Express Agency V. NY (Under-inclusive example) (Advertisements)
A NY traffic regulation prohibited trucks from having advertisements on their sides unless those trucks are advertising their own services. The purpose of the statute is safety – advertisements are distracting to drivers. This classification is under-inclusive - it does not prohibit all advertisements – allows businesses to advertise on their own trucks. (constitutional)
Actual Purpose Review (Rational Basis with a bite)
The court will assume that the objectives articulated by the legislature are the actual purposes of the statute, unless an examination of the circumstances reveals that the stated purposes could not have been a goal of the legislature. (Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery). Actual purpose review is often triggered when the government discriminates against a politically unpopular group.
US Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (Actual Purpose Review) (Hippies)
Facts: The Food Stamp Act of 1964 excluded from participation in the food stamp program any household containing an individual who was unrelated to any other members of the household.
Holding: Unconstitutional! Why?
The legislature stated that the purpose of the Act was to raise levels of nutrition among low-income households and increase utilization of food so as to strengthen our agricultural economy. The Court concluded that the statutory classification is irrelevant to this purpose.
The Court looked to the legislative history to determine the actual purpose of the statute. The legislative history revealed that the Act was intended to prevent hippie communes from participating in the food stamp program. The classification cannot be sustained by this purpose. A bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest.
(unconstitutional)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (Actual Purpose Review) (Mental hospital)
Facts: The City of Cleburne had a municipal zoning ordinance that permitted a wide variety of structures to be built on a particular cite including hospitals, sanitariums, and nursing homes. However, the ordinance specifically exempted homes for the insane or alcoholics, or drug addicts.
Holding: UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The ordinance violates the equal protection clause.
Rationale:
There is no legitimate governmental purpose for the classification here! The actual purpose for the classification here was concern with the negative attitude of the majority of property owners located within 200 feet of the facility.
Mere negative attitude and fear are not permissible bases for discriminating against the mentally retarded!
(unconstitutional)
Sexual Orientation Standard of Review
The Court currently applies rational basis with actual purpose review to analyze statutes that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Romer V. Evans (Actual Purpose Review) (Anti-Discrimination)
Facts: Colorado enacted a constitutional amendment (Amendment 2) prohibiting local governments from enacting anti-discrimination measures protecting homosexual conduct, practices or relationships.
Holding: The Court, applying rational basis review, held that Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. The justifications offered by the state are not legitimate; the actual purpose for this amendment is hostility towards homosexuals. A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.
(unconstitutional)
Justice Kennedy - Takes away same sex couples Dignity!!!
Perry v. Brown (Actual Purpose Review) (Prop 8)
Facts: A California statute limited marriage to a man and a woman. The statute is challenged in state court on state constitutional grounds and is struck down on state constitutional grounds, such that marriage is no longer limited to a man and a woman. There is a political uproar, and as a result, the people of the state amend the Constitution restore the status quo ante through Proposition 8, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Prop 8 returned the status of homosexual couples to the traditional baseline adopted by the state for years – that marriage is between a man and a woman. It did not make homosexuals worse off as it did in Romer where the state denied homosexuals rights they had possessed for years. Weaker case to prove discriminatory animus.
Holding: The 9th Circuit, however, did ultimately strike down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the statute denied homosexuals equal protection of the law – it denies them equal access to marriage to a certain class of disfavored citizens. (unconstitutional)
US v. Windsor (DOMA)
Facts: DOMA provides that the word marriage means only a legal union between a husband and a wife, and the word spouse refers only to the person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Holding: The statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment. No legitimate governmental purpose for the statute - the actual purpose of DOMA is to discriminate against same-sex couples. DOMA tells same-sex couples that their otherwise valid state-sanctioned marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. It places same-sex couples in the position of being in a second tier marriage.
(unconstituional)
