Rational basis review

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In US constitutional law is rational basis review (also: rational-purpose test, rational relationship test, minimum scrutiny, minimal scrutiny ) of the standard assessment criteria apply to the courts in the examination of constitutional issues, including due process and issues of protection equal in Under the fifth or fourteenth amendment to the constitution . Courts that use the rational basis review attempt to determine whether a law has a “reasonable reference” to a “legitimate” - real or hypothetical - state interest. The stricter test standards areintermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny . A stricter control is carried out if there is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification or a fundamental right is affected.

In the case law of the United States Supreme Court , the nature of the interest in question determines the rigor of the control applied by the appeals courts . When courts carry out a rational basis review , only the most serious violations of the normative, i. H. those which cannot reasonably be associated with a legitimate state interest are repealed.

overview

The rational basis review examines whether the government's actions are "reasonably" linked to a "legitimate" state interest. The Supreme Court has never set standards for determining what constitutes a legitimate government interest. In the rational basis review , it is "totally irrelevant" what goal the government is actually trying to achieve , and the law can be based on "rational speculation not supported by evidence or empirical data". If the court can only presume a "legitimate" interest served by the contested act, the law will stand up to a rational basis review . Judges who follow the direction of the Supreme Court see themselves as "obliged to seek other possible reasons for validating contested laws" when the government is unable to justify its own policies.

history

The concept of the rational basis review goes back to the influential 1893 article The Origin and Scope of American Constitutional Law by Harvard Professor James Bradley Thayer . Thayer argued that laws should only be declared invalid if their unconstitutionality is "so clear that there can be no reasonable doubt about them." Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. , a student of Thayer, represented in his canonical dissent in Lochner v. New York was an early version of what was later to become a rational basis review . He argues that

“The word 'liberty,' in the 14th Amendment, is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. "

“The word 'freedom' in the 14th Amendment is reversed when it is understood to mean that it is intended to prevent the natural outcome of a prevailing opinion as long as one could not say that [even] a reasonable and just man would compulsorily admit that the proposed law violates fundamental principles of the tradition of our people and our law. "

The prevalent use of the economic substantive due process during the Lochner era , however, meant that Holmes' proposed doctrine of judicial deference did not immediately become the dominant opinion. Only in Nebbia v. In New York , the Supreme Court officially began using the rational basis review . He explained,

"A State is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose."

"That a state is free to pursue any economic policy that can reasonably be regarded as beneficial to the common good, and to enforce that policy through legislation designed for that purpose."

In United States v. Carolene Products Co. , in footnote four , left the court open the possibility for laws that appear to be within a “specific prohibition of the constitution” to restrict the political process or burden the “ discrete and insular minorities ” to be subjected to closer scrutiny could. Today, such laws are based on the strict scrutiny , while laws that contain unenumerated rights that the Supreme Court has not recognized as fundamental rights are examined using the rational basis review .

applicability

In modern constitutional law, the rational basis review is applied both to constitutional reviews of federal law and, via the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution , to the examination of the national law of the individual states . This test standard applies to both legislative and executive measures , regardless of whether they are measures within the framework of the substantive due process or the procedural due process . The rational basis review prohibits the government from imposing unreasonable or arbitrary restrictions on the freedom of citizens or making distinctions between persons in a way that serves no constitutionally legitimate purpose. A "law enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons" , but must at least "bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose" .

To understand the concept of rational basis review , it is easier to understand what it is not. The rational basis review does not require any real effort to determine the real motives of the legislature for passing a law. Nor is it about checking whether a law actually promotes a legitimate purpose. A court that conducts a rational basis review will practically always uphold a contested law, unless there is no justification for a gross violation of the laws of thought ( non sequitur ). In 2008, Judge John Paul Stevens confirmed the cautious nature of the review of the rational basis review in a concurring opinion :

"[A] s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall , remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

"I remember my esteemed former colleague Thurgood Marshall saying on numerous occasions, 'The Constitution doesn't forbid lawmakers from making stupid laws.'"

literature

Encyclopedias

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Bryan A. Garner: Rational Basis Test . In: Black's Law Dictionary . 11th edition. 2019.
  2. ^ A b Cornell University Law School : Rational Basis. Retrieved August 26, 2015 .
  3. ↑ Mayo v. Wisconsin Injured Patients & Families Compensation Fund, 2018 WI 78, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ NW2d ___ ,. P. 78 , accessed on August 31, 2019 .
  4. ^ Rational Basis Test, The Free Dictionary. Farlex. Retrieved August 26, 2015 .
  5. ↑ Indest, Miles O. "Walking Dead: The Fifth Circuit Resurrects Rational Basis Review." Tulane Law Review 88.5 (2014): 993-1005. 26 Aug 2015.
  6. ↑ United States v. Carolene Products Co. , 304 US 144 (1938).
  7. ^ Equal Protection in Florida . In: Huffington Post , December 1, 2008. 
  8. ↑ See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission , 483 US 825, 834 (1987)
  9. ↑ FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc . 508 US 307,315 (1993)
  10. ↑ Sullivan, Kathleen M. & Gunther Gerald. Constitutional Law . Foundation Press, New York, NY. 16th Ed. Chapter 9 (2007).
  11. ↑ Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto , 253 F.3d 137, 146 (1st Cir.2001)
  12. ^ Richard A. Posner: The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint . In: California Law Review . 100, No. 3, 2012, pp. 519, 522. Accessed February 24, 2015.
  13. ↑ Indest, Miles O. "Walking Dead: The Fifth Circuit Resurrects Rational Basis Review." Tulane Law Review 88.5 (2014): 993-1005. Web. 26 Aug 2015.
  14. ^ Killian, Johnny H., George A. Costello, & Kenneth R. Thomas, co-eds., The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002 , by Congressional Research Service , Library of Congress (Senate Document No. 108-17, 108th Congress, 2d Session) (Washington [DC]: US Gov't Printing Ofc. 2004) (short title: Constitution Annotated ), p 1906–1910 (pp. 242–246 via Adobe Acrobat Reader) https://web.archive.org/web/20150224234544/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf /GPO-CONAN-2002-9-15.pdf ( Memento from March 7, 2014 in the Internet Archive ), title page (p. [I] (p. 1 via Adobe Acrobat Reader)) http: //www.gpoaccess. gov / constitution / pdf2002 / 001-Title.pdf ( Memento from January 7, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) , and Authorization (authorization to publish by joint resolution) (giving short title) (p. III) (p. 1 per Adobe Acrobat Reader) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/002-Author ization.pdf ( Memento of January 7, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) , October 23, 2005).
  15. ↑ Romer v. Evans , 517 US 620 (1996) at 635
  16. ^ New York State Vol. Of Elections v. Lopez Torres , 552 US 196, ___ (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring).