Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Rational basis review is not a genuine effort to determine the legislature's actual reasons for enacting a statute, nor to inquire into whether a statute does in fact further a legitimate end of government. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every conceivable justification for it is a ...
Holding; Possessing an intellectual disability is not a quasi-suspect classification calling for a heightened level of scrutiny, but nevertheless, the requirement of a special use permit for a proposed group home for people with intellectual disabilities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because no rational basis for the discriminatory classification could be ...
An example of a court using intermediate scrutiny came in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), which was the first case in the United States Supreme Court which determined that statutory or administrative sex-based classifications were subject to an intermediate standard of judicial review. [4] In Mississippi University for Women v.
Under a rational basis test, the burden of proof is on the challenger so laws are rarely overturned by a rational basis test. [ 39 ] There is also a middle level of scrutiny, called intermediate scrutiny , but it is used primarily in Equal Protection cases, rather than in Due Process cases: "The standards of intermediate scrutiny have yet to ...
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. [1]
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. [1] It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v.
McClung argued that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, at least as applied to a small, private business such as his. McClung further argued that the amount of food purchased by Ollie's that actually crossed state lines (about half of the food at Ollie's) was so minuscule that Ollie's effectively had no effect on interstate commerce (although McClung admitted that a significant amount ...
Another example is the D.C. Circuit Court's 2007 ruling in Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach that compelling government interest was demonstrated in the restriction of unapproved prescription drugs. [1] The burden of proof falls on the state in cases that require strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, but not the rational basis.