The standard, employed in judicial review, assesses the constitutionality of a law. This assessment occurs when no fundamental rights are implicated and no suspect classifications are involved. The challenged law needs only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. An example involves a city ordinance regulating ice cream truck routes; such a regulation would likely be assessed under this standard. The ordinance would be upheld if the city could demonstrate a reasonable connection between the regulation and a legitimate governmental purpose, such as reducing traffic congestion or ensuring public safety.
The significance of this level of scrutiny lies in its deference to legislative judgment. It acknowledges that lawmakers are generally better positioned to determine the needs of society. Furthermore, it recognizes that achieving legislative goals often involves compromises and incremental steps. Historically, this approach reflects a judicial philosophy of restraint, allowing the political branches considerable latitude in addressing societal problems. Its benefit is promoting flexibility for government to act without undue judicial interference.
