Laws that apply generally to everyone are subject to a "rational basis" test, which means a state need only prove a basic, underlying, rational reason for a law to withstand an equal protection or due process challenge.
Rowes added a constitutional perspective to this by remarking that a law prohibiting an activity on the ground that it is "morally repugnant" does not advance the public health or safety interests of the state and therefore could fail a "rational basis" test when put before a court.
Judge Vaughn Walker applied a rational basis test to Prop 8 and struck it down.
The Court said that these laws wouldn't receive strict scrutiny (like racial laws), but still "heightened scrutiny" (rather than, in legal lingo, a "rational basis" test).
Future weeks would, on a monthly basis, test the same data-mining methods on different scenarios like human trafficking, terrorism, and narcotics.
Rather, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, application of a "rational basis" test should be at least as exacting as it has been in the Commerce Clause cases, if not more so.
In countries of Western Europe, where DNA testing is typically carried out on a non-commercial basis, test results are available within 4 weeks, if necessary.
Under this "rational basis" test, a statute will be upheld — even when groups are treated differently — if the law has some reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
The Secretary shall review and evaluate on a continuing basis testing programs carried out by industry to assure the adequacy of safeguards against hazardous electronic product radiation and to assure that electronic products comply with standards prescribed under this section.
For decades, state and federal courts have applied an excessively deferential "rational basis test" to most laws that treat citizens unequally.
