The court’s inquiry is twofold: 1) Does the government have a legitimate interest? And 2) Is there a reasonable “fit” between the asserted interest and the challenged law? The fit need not be exact, but neither can it be incongruous. This means the burden falls to the plaintiff to defeat that presumption by showing that there is no rational relationship between the government’s interest (usually health and safety or consumer protection) and the means chosen to achieve that interest (requiring occupational licenses). While the state asserts some version of health and safety/consumer protection justifications for its licensing scheme, practitioners who have filed suit challenging these laws contend that their right to earn a living has been unconstitutionally thwarted.Īs a starting point, courts employing rational basis presume that the laws, in this case occupational licensing requirements, are constitutional. But some of the professions that require these licenses are objectively absurd, like interior designers and floristry. This makes sense for someone like a doctor, who must demonstrate expertise that could impact the life and health of a patient. Occupational licensing is a form of economic regulation that forces individuals to ask the government for permission-usually after jumping through training and examination hoops-before they can earn a living in their given professions. Rather than dive right into the legal complexities, perhaps the best way to understand rational basis is to take a closer look at the courts in action, starting with some examples from the burdensome world of occupational licensing. In general, the latter can be summarized as “government loses.” Rational basis scrutiny can be thought of as “government wins.” ![]() It is the most deferential of methods, in stark contrast to strict scrutiny. ![]() Put simply, rational basis scrutiny is a method courts use to evaluate the constitutionality of challenged laws. Jackson Women’s Health case, have hinged on courts’ use of rational basis scrutiny. Whether you are familiar with it or not, the fate of many high-profile federal lawsuits, including the controversial Dobbs v. In fact, it’s likely you’ve never encountered the term before. ![]() Unless you’re a legal wonk, you probably don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the Supreme Court’s use of rational basis scrutiny.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |