![]() There, the Supreme Court held that even a law that enacts needless requirements and that lacks logical consistency could be constitutional, even where the law only might solve a perceived problem. Yet that requirement was all but abandoned by 1955 when the Supreme Court decided Williamson v. New York in 1934 the Court explained that even under the rational basis test, a law still could not be arbitrary or discriminatory. Originally, when the Court started employing the rational basis test in earnest during the New Deal Era, the Court did require at least some level of rationality. That is, for most rights, the burden is on individuals to prove that the government is violating their rights, rather than requiring the government to prove what it is doing is constitutional. When a person challenges a licensing law for violating his right to earn an honest living the court will require her to prove that the law is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose. Private property rights and the right to earn an honest living are generally only protected by the rational basis test. Courts will also require such a showing if the law discriminates against discrete and insular minorities.īut other rights are not so lucky. When evaluating laws challenged as a violation of free speech, the courts will generally apply something known as “strict scrutiny.” This means that the court will only uphold the law if the government can prove that it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Some rights, like free speech, will receive meaningful protection from the judiciary. The level of scrutiny the Court will use, or how closely the Court will look at a law, depends on the right a person accuses the government of violating. The rational basis test is one of the three tiers of scrutiny the Court employs when evaluating constitutional challenges to laws, orders, and regulations. This post will explore what we all hope is the high-water mark of the rational basis test as seen in two Supreme Court cases decided in June 1993: F.C.C. The second examined how to test became established during the New Deal Era and how it developed from a generally deferential test to an even more deferential “test.” The first explored the origins of the test found in the opinions of Justice Harlan, Justice Holmes, and James Bradley Thayer. ![]() This is a third in a series of posts examining the creation and evolution of the rational basis test.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |