Which statement best describes rational basis review in equal protection challenges?

Which statement best describes rational basis review in equal protection challenges?

• A. It is highly deferential and upholds classifications rationally related to legitimate purposes
• B. It requires a compelling justification
• C. It uses intermediate scrutiny
• D. It invalidates most governmental classifications

Answer: (A)

Rational basis review is the most deferential form of equal protection analysis. The government only has to show that a classification is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Courts give broad leeway to legislative and administrative classifications; as long as there is any plausible legitimate purpose and a conceivable link between the classification and that purpose, the law is sustained. The burden is on the challenger to show there is no conceivable legitimate purpose or no rational connection; otherwise the statute or policy is upheld. This standard generally applies to non-suspect classes and non-fundamental rights. So the statement that it is highly deferential and upholds classifications rationally related to legitimate purposes best captures the concept. Descriptions requiring a compelling justification describe strict scrutiny, and those describing intermediate scrutiny apply to other contexts. The claim that rational basis invalidates most governmental classifications is incorrect.

Rational basis review is the most deferential form of equal protection analysis. The government only has to show that a classification is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Courts give broad leeway to legislative and administrative classifications; as long as there is any plausible legitimate purpose and a conceivable link between the classification and that purpose, the law is sustained. The burden is on the challenger to show there is no conceivable legitimate purpose or no rational connection; otherwise the statute or policy is upheld. This standard generally applies to non-suspect classes and non-fundamental rights.

So the statement that it is highly deferential and upholds classifications rationally related to legitimate purposes best captures the concept. Descriptions requiring a compelling justification describe strict scrutiny, and those describing intermediate scrutiny apply to other contexts. The claim that rational basis invalidates most governmental classifications is incorrect.