In legal terms, what does it mean if a law is subjected to 'rational basis' review?

When a law is subjected to 'rational basis' review, it means that the law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This standard of judicial review is applied in cases that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications, such as race or religion. Under rational basis review, the government does not have to prove that the law is the best means to achieve its objective, only that there is some reasonable connection between the law and a legitimate government goal.

This type of review provides a significant degree of deference to legislative bodies, allowing them to make broad policy judgments without the courts substituting their judgment for that of the lawmakers. Consequently, as long as the legislation has a plausible or reasonable basis tied to a legitimate state interest, it is likely to be upheld.

In contrast, options involving compelling state interests or fundamental rights invoke stricter scrutiny, such as 'strict scrutiny' or 'intermediate scrutiny,' which demand much higher levels of justification from the government. Thus, 'rational basis' review represents the most lenient level of scrutiny applied by courts in the U.S. legal system.