EPABATE - R ational basis test the law is constitutional so...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rational basis test the law is constitutional so long as it is “rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest” However, still might violate P/I or DCC if justification does not meet the applicable standard Does the law have a legit purpose Romer (rational basis with bite) o State const amendment prohibiting govt from creating laws protecting homos from discrimination was unconst bc in singled out one group for disfavored status US RR Retirement board v. Fritz (is conceivable purpose enough) o Social and economic legislation by cong (in this case dealing with RR retirement benefits) will be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a permissible govt interest and is not totally arbitrary in enforcement. In this case govt set a date for new formula for retirement benefits to kick in was ok FCC v. Beach o P has burden to negate every conceivable legit purpose of law under the rational basis test Policy argument: individual legislators might have different reasons for voting for a law so any conceivable purpose is enough Also if law could be struck down for not having a legit actual purpose congress could just reenact it with a stated purpose Requirements for a reasonable relationship Railway express v. NY (Underinclusive) o NYC regulation prohibited advertising on vehicles but made an exception for ads on the owner’s vehicle for the owner’s business Even though law is underinclusive it is still ok under rational basis bc states can deal with problems in steps and don’t need to pass laws covering every part of the issue all at once NY v. Beazer (Overinclusive) o Reg banning methadone users from working for transit authority does not violate EP bc it meets rational basis test even if it is overinclusive bc some ppl in rehab will succeed in quitting law is still const bc it advances a legit state interest and is not totally arbitrary in enforcement Cases where laws are arbitrary and unreasonable Moreno o Law denying food stamps to any household containing a member unrelated to the other members was unconst violation of EP and did not even meet rational basis o Stated purpose was to raise nutrition levels of the poor and strengthen agricultural economy Legislative history showed real purpose was to prevent hippie communes from getting food stamps Desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legit interest Argument that law will prevent fraud is not valid bc other sections of act
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
deal with preventing and punishing fraud Court generally will grant deference to legislative goals but not when goals themselves not legit Cleburne o Laws impacting the mentally retarded are not given heightened scrutiny and only need to meet rational basis, still court found a law requiring a special permit for group homes for home for mild to moderate retards violated EP bc city gave permits to many other special groups such as alcoholics and frats in the same area Treatment of retards is a job for the legislature not the courts
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2010 for the course LAW LAW5502 taught by Professor Stern during the Spring '10 term at Florida State College.

Page1 / 11

EPABATE - R ational basis test the law is constitutional so...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online