About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

14 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 401 (2016)
The Rational Basis Test Is Constitutional (and Desirable)

handle is hein.journals/geojlap14 and id is 412 raw text is: The Rational Basis Test Is Constitutional (and Desirable) ERWIN CHEMERINSKY* INTRODUCTION ............................................. 401 I. BALANCING IS INEVITABLE ................................. 403 II. RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW SHOULD BE USED FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL WELFARE LAWS ................................... 405 III. MAKING THE RATIONAL BEST TEST MEANINGFUL ................ 410 A. The Inquiry as to the Government's Purpose ............ 410 B. The Inquiry as to the Means .......................... 413 CONCLUSION ................................................ 416 INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court got it right in its famous footnote four in United States v. Carolene Products.' There, the Supreme Court articulated the idea that different constitutional claims would be subjected to varying levels of review.2 The Court explained that courts generally should presume that laws are constitutional. However, a more searching judicial inquiry is appropriate when a law inter- feres with individual rights, restricts the ability of the political process to repeal undesirable legislation, or discriminates against discrete and insular minori- ties.3 It is a framework of general judicial deference to the legislature but with those particular matters distinguished for more intensive judicial review. Under the Carolene Products framework, the rational basis test is the mini- mum level of review.4 Under equal protection, all classifications must at least meet this level of review, though laws that draw certain kinds of classifications must meet a higher standard. Likewise, laws where liberty or property are * Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law. I want to thank Laura Lively for her excellent research assistance. I also am grateful to the participants at the symposium at Georgetown University Law Center. © 2016, Erwin Chemerinsky. 1. 304 U.S. 144 (1938). 2. See generally J.M. Balkin, The Footnote, 83 Nw. U. L. REv. 275, 282-93 (1989) (discussing footnote four in Carolene Prods.). 3. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. at 152 n.4. 4. See, e.g., Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 60 (1982) (Generally, a law will survive ... scrutiny if the distinction it makes rationally furthers a legitimate state purpose.); U.S. Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 533 (1973) (Under traditional equal protection analysis, a legislative classification must be sustained if the classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most