1/3/2024 0 Comments Rational scrutinyStrict scrutiny also is used when a law targets a specific religious faith. Under a strict scrutiny analysis, a law that restricts freedom of speech must achieve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest or be the least speech-restrictive means available to the government. The standard of review for sexual orientation cases, then, has been mockingly called "rational basis with teeth," making light of the Court's current confusion.Strict scrutiny is the highest form of review that courts use to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. As a result, it is likely that the Court is using something higher than "rational basis" in evaluating discrimination against homosexuals, but that the Court does not wish to say as much. However, such a momentous holding suggests that the real standard of review being applied is something higher than rational basis, because disallowing morality as a rational basis would be potentially too far for the current moderate Court. Texas both appear to apply rational basis review in rejecting classifications on the basis of sexual orientation they base their decisions on the grounds that the enforcement of neither animus nor morality can be a legitimate state interest. There is currently some doctrinal confusion on the application of rational basis review to classifications on the basis of sexual orientation. The distinction between "filled" milk and real milk, is an example of a rational basis classification. Rational basis classifications are largely economic, implicating only the government's police powers. Even a state interest that is pretextual will be accepted this standard of review is very light, and deferential to the state. The doctrine of "rational basis review" suggests that where a government classification, which adversely affects one group, involves no suspect classification against a "discrete & insular minority", supports a legitimate state interest, and is reasonably related to that legitimate interest, the classification passes constitutional muster. It has been suggested that, based on US Supreme Court jurisprudence, it must be considered a quasi-suspect classification but while some lower courts have embraced that argument, the US Supreme Court itself has not yet spoken. The question of the correct standard of review for sexual orientation is unsettled. Examples of grounds of discrimination subject to rational basis review include age, disability, wealth, political beliefs or affiliations, and criminal history. Unequal treatment based on a suspect classification requires the strongest level of justification (strict scrutiny) unequal treatment based on a quasi-suspect classification requires an intermediate degree of justification (intermediate scrutiny) unequal treatment on any other grounds only requires rational basis review. Gender and legitimacy (marital status of one's parents at birth) are quasi-suspect classification. Currently, the only "suspect classifications" are race, religion, and national origin. More particularly, it is the standard of constitutional review that the judiciary uses to evaluate a legislative classification which does not involve any suspect classifications. Rational basis review is a doctrine of US constitutional law used to evaluate the permissibility of exceptions to the equal protection clause.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |