A state legislature passes a law that provides additional welfare benefits exclusively to residents of urban areas, citing the higher cost of living as the justification. An individual from a rural area challenges the law, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Under rational basis review, which of the following is the most appropriate outcome?
The law remains valid because it addresses a legitimate concern related to differences in living costs.
The law is struck down because welfare benefits are distributed uniformly to residents.
The law is invalidated because it treats rural and urban residents differently without a compelling reason.
The law is valid provided it pertains to a fundamental right.
Under rational basis review, the court will uphold the law if there is a reasonable justification for the classification. In this case, addressing higher living costs in urban areas is a permissible government objective, and the classification serves that objective, making the law constitutionally valid. Other options incorrectly apply higher standards or overlook the reasonableness of the government's purpose.
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 the Equal Protection Clause and why is it important?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is rational basis review and how is it applied in legal cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are some examples of classifications that could face strict scrutiny instead of rational basis review?