Because it is not made with mathematical nicety or

Info icon This preview shows pages 267–269. Sign up to view the full content.

because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in prac- tice it results in some inequality. 3. When the classification in such a law is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed. 4. One who as- sails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of show- ing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essen- tially arbitrary.” Especially because of the emphasis upon the necessity for total arbitrariness, utter irrationality, and the fact that the Court will strain to conceive of a set of facts that will justify the classifi- cation, the test is extremely lenient and, assuming the existence of a constitutionally permissible goal, no classification will ever be up- set. But, contemporaneously with this test, the Court also pro- nounced another lenient standard which did leave to the courts a judgmental role. In F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia , 1456 the court put forward the following test: “[T]he classification must be reason- able, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legisla- tion, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” 1457 Use of the latter standard did in fact result in some in- validations. 1458 1455 220 U.S. 61, 78–79 (1911), quoted in full in Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 463–64 (1957). Classifications which are purposefully discriminatory fall before the Equal Protection Clause without more. E.g. , Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 30 (1885); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373–74 (1886). Cf. New York City Transit Auth. v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 593 n.40 (1979). Explicit in all the formulations is that a legislature must have had a permissible purpose, a requirement which is sel- dom failed, given the leniency of judicial review. But see Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 63–64 (1982), and id. at 65 (Justice Brennan concurring). 1456 253 U.S. 412 (1920). 1457 253 U.S. at 415. See also Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U.S. 563, 573 (1910). 1458 E.g. , F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412 (1920) (striking down a tax on the out-of-state income of domestic corporations that did business in the state, when domestic corporations that engaged only in out-of-state business were exempted); Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550 (1935) (striking down a graduated tax on gross receipts as arbitrary because it was insufficiently related to net profits); Mayflower Farms v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 266 (1936) (striking down a 2099 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED
Image of page 267

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

But then, coincident with the demise of substantive due pro- cess in the area of economic regulation, 1459 the Court reverted to the former standard, deferring to the legislative judgment on ques- tions of economics and related matters; even when an impermis- sible purpose could have been attributed to the classifiers it was usually possible to conceive of a reason that would justify the clas- sification.
Image of page 268
Image of page 269
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern