The rational basis test is used by US judges to determine if a law is constitutional. It is the lowest level of scrutiny and usually favors the legislator. Plaintiffs must prove discrimination and arbitrariness. Legitimate discrimination may cause the test to favor the plaintiff.
Rational basis is the scrutiny standard used by judges in the United States to determine whether a legislator has the proper basis to enact a particular law. This type of review usually occurs in connection with cases involving a plaintiff who claims that his due process or her protective rights have been violated. Because the rationale is the lowest level of scrutiny used by judges, cases involving it are usually decided on behalf of the legislator. Rulings in the United States have established that the legislature does not even have to articulate how this review standard applies to your case in order for it to be used in the ruling. Cases of legitimate discrimination cause the test to be applied differently, often in favor of the plaintiff.
The application of the rationale test can occur when an individual or group claims that constitutional rights have been denied. Complaints generally concern denial of process, which is the right to be protected by law. Another common claim is that a plaintiff is denied equal rights of protection because of the discrimination. Regardless of the type of claim, plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the law or policy in question is discriminatory. Judges will then use a rational basis to determine whether the enactment of the law was rational or arbitrary.
In cases involving the standard of rationale, the state or legislature simply has to demonstrate that abidance by the law provides a legitimate advantage on its behalf. This can make these cases extremely difficult for the plaintiff to win once this test is applied. The plaintiff must not only demonstrate that the law in question excludes or discriminates against him, but also that he does so arbitrarily.
The legislator also benefits from the rational basis test because it does not require him to justify the enactment of the law. Rulings by the United States Supreme Court have held that the court in question can find a rational reason for a law even if the enactment state fails to provide its own reasons for applying the law in the particular case. This clause further removes the burden from the legislator in such cases.
In some cases, cases involving a person or group who are denied their constitutional rights may favor the plaintiff even if rational review is applied. These cases usually involve arbitrary racial, religious, or other discrimination that serves no rational advantage to the state. The rationale test, which may favor plaintiffs in cases like this, is described at that point as “bite.”
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
