A state enacts a law that significantly restricts the ability of individuals to grow certain herbs for personal use, citing public health concerns. Under substantive due process, how should the court evaluate this law's impact on "other rights and interests"?
The law is unconstitutional because it infringes upon a fundamental right to privacy.
The law is subject to heightened scrutiny as it impacts a suspect classification.
The law is upheld based on state police powers over health.
The law is subject to rational basis review as it affects non-fundamental rights.
The correct answer is B. Regulations affecting non-fundamental rights are evaluated under rational basis review, which requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, such as public health. Option A is incorrect because it incorrectly categorizes the right as fundamental. Option C is wrong as heightened scrutiny applies to suspect classifications, not "other rights and interests." Option D is incorrect because it suggests the law is upheld based solely on state police powers without considering the rational basis requirement.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is rational basis review?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are non-fundamental rights?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is meant by 'public health concerns' in legal context?