A city zoning ordinance requires a special use permit for operating a group home. A proposed group home for convicts during transition from prison sentences to parole is denied despite meeting all permit criteria. The plaintiff sues for declaratory and injunctive relief. What is the appropriate burden of persuasion in this equal protection challenge?

• A. Because housing is a fundamental right, the zoning board must demonstrate that denial of the permit is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
• B. Housing is not a fundamental right, so rational basis applies.
• C. The group home involves a quasi-suspect class, triggering intermediate scrutiny.
• D. The denial triggers rational basis review.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is how equal protection is applied to zoning rules affecting housing when no fundamental right or suspect class is involved. Because a general housing right isn’t treated as fundamental, and convict/parole status isn’t a protected class, the denial of the group home is reviewed under rational basis scrutiny. Under rational basis, the government need only show the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate public interest, such as neighborhood safety, orderly land use, or administrative efficiency. The burden then rests on the challenger to show there is no conceivable legitimate reason for the decision or that it is irrational. Given the record—denying the permit despite meeting all criteria—the court would defer heavily to the zoning authority and require a strong showing that no plausible rational basis exists, which is unlikely. So the appropriate burden of persuasion is rational basis review.