WHAT IS THE RATIONAL BASIS LAW

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome everyone to Inside the Badge.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
We delve deep into.

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Understanding criminal law. So let's get started. Have you ever
wondered what your fairy friend is really thinking?

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Well, let me introduce to you my new book, Dog
Psychology by doctor Carlos Vasquez. As a psychology professor with
over ten years experience, I've unlocked the secrets of.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
The canine psyche.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
I will teach you how to understand your dog's body language,
to code their barks and wines, solved behavioral puzzles, and
strengthen your bond like never before. With Dog Psychology, you'll
see the world through your dog's eyes. Don't just be
a dog owner, become a dog whisperer. So go get
Dog Psychology by doctor Carlos Vasquez, available now on kindle

(00:56):
or paperback on Amazon.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
We're gonna be look at the rational basis test. What
is this Well, it's basically the lowest bar for judging
if laws are on or constitutional or not. In theory,
courts should uphold almost any law that has some reasonable
connection to a legitimate government goal. But here's the thing.
The Supreme Court has not been consistent about how they
apply this test. So let's look at three cases to

(01:30):
show the inconsistency. First, in the Clairborne case C. L E.
B U r N E, the court struck down a
zoning rule that required special permits for homes for intellectually
disabled people. While they claimed they were just using the
basic rational basis test, they actually picked apart all of
the city's reasons very carefully. They rejected concerns about neighbors attitudes,

(01:53):
floodplain location, and building occupancy issues. Legal scholars call this
stricter approach a rational basis with a bite. Legal expert
Gerald Gunter noticed this pattern and wrote about how the
court sometimes uses a tougher version of rational basis review
that demands laws actually accomplish what they claim to. But

(02:14):
if you look at the Kadramas case Kadrmas, the court
went back to the more Lenian approach, upholding North Dakota
school bus fees even though they burdened poor families. All
they did is simply accept the state's financial interests as
good enough. In Pliler Versus Doe, they switched approaches again

(02:34):
and struck down a Texas law that denied education to
undocumented immigrant children. They recognize how important education is, even
though it's technically not a constitutional right. The flexibility might
help courts protect vulnerable groups without formally expanding protected categories,
but it creates confusion about when and how the test

(02:55):
would be applied. The Supreme Court hasn't explained how these
different vers versions of the same test can coexist, and
of course this raises an interesting question. Is the Court
making value judgments about which groups deserve protection rather than
following consistent principles? In other words, is ideology driving their decisions?