Which level of scrutiny applies to most non-suspect classifications?

• A. Strict scrutiny.
• B. Rational basis.
• C. Intermediate scrutiny.
• D. No scrutiny.

Answer: (B)

Non-suspect classifications are reviewed under rational basis analysis. This is the most deferential form of equal protection review. The government only has to show that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Courts give broad deference to legislative judgments, so as long as there is any conceivable legitimate purpose and any plausible link between the classification and that purpose, the law usually stands. The burden is on the challenger to show there is no conceivable legitimate objective or that the means chosen are irrational.

That’s why rational basis is the best answer for most non-suspect classifications. For example, age-based restrictions or other economic or social classifications typically survive because there’s often a plausible reason tied to safety, welfare, or resource management. In contrast, classifications involving suspect classes (like race) or fundamental rights trigger stricter scrutiny (strict scrutiny) or, for gender-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny, which are much more demanding. No scrutiny isn’t used in these contexts: there’s always at least some level of review.