Which standard applies to a state statute that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest?

Which standard applies to a state statute that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest?

• A. Strict scrutiny
• B. Per se invalid
• C. Rational basis review
• D. Intermediate scrutiny

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is what level of scrutiny courts use when reviewing a statute under equal protection. When a law is claimed to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest, the court applies rational basis review. This is the most deferential standard: the law will be upheld if there is any plausible, conceivable reason that could relate the statute to a legitimate government objective. The challenger bears the heavy burden only to show that no plausible reason exists; as long as one can imagine a legitimate purpose, the law survives. That’s why this choice fits best. If you were applying strict scrutiny, you’d need a compelling state interest and a law narrowly tailored to achieve it, which isn’t required here. Intermediate scrutiny would demand a substantial relation to an important objective, typically for gender classifications, which again isn’t the situation. Per se invalid isn’t a standard of review used here—the rational basis test is the relevant framework when the statute is claimed to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The main idea here is what level of scrutiny courts use when reviewing a statute under equal protection. When a law is claimed to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest, the court applies rational basis review. This is the most deferential standard: the law will be upheld if there is any plausible, conceivable reason that could relate the statute to a legitimate government objective. The challenger bears the heavy burden only to show that no plausible reason exists; as long as one can imagine a legitimate purpose, the law survives.

That’s why this choice fits best. If you were applying strict scrutiny, you’d need a compelling state interest and a law narrowly tailored to achieve it, which isn’t required here. Intermediate scrutiny would demand a substantial relation to an important objective, typically for gender classifications, which again isn’t the situation. Per se invalid isn’t a standard of review used here—the rational basis test is the relevant framework when the statute is claimed to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.