rational basis test in Oklahoma

1996Massachusetts Board of Retirement, v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 , 314 (1976) (citations omitted). ¶ 15 In McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the United States Supreme Court, in determining the validity of Maryland's Sunday closing laws, had occasion to comment on the Equal Protection Clause's rational-basis standard, and in so commenting the Court noted that (1) in establishing distinctions the states are afforded a "wide-scope of discretion"; (2) a classification is only struck down if it rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of a state objective; (3) distinctions are presum

1993Schools, 487 U.S. 450, 462 , 108 S.Ct. 2481, 2490 , 101 L.Ed.2d 399 (1988) (the Court applied the rational-basis test to uphold a statutory scheme that gives school boards the option to charge user fees for bus service); Cleburne, supra note 33 , 473 U.S. at 440 , 105 S.Ct. at 3254 ; Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 331-32 , 101 S.Ct. 2376, 2387 , 69 L.Ed.2d 40 (1981) (prime farmland provisions of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act are held rationally related to legitimate governmental purpose); Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981) (the C

2023No. 30 (I-30) , 2003 OK 30, 66 P.3d 442, the Court of Civil Appeals correctly noted that, absent a suspect classification or the infringement upon a fundamental right, the rational basis test should govern any dispute involving alleged governmental interference with a right. ¶4 Yet, while it is axiomatic that a parent has a fundamental right to the care, custody, companionship and management of his or her child, protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions, see In re K.H ., 2021 OK 33, ¶ 26, 507 P.3d 647, 653, the Court of Civil appeals determined that the unmarried putative father wa

2023No. 30 (I-30) , 2003 OK 30, 66 P.3d 442, the Court of Civil Appeals correctly noted that, absent a suspect classification or the infringement upon a fundamental right, the rational basis test should govern any dispute involving alleged governmental interference with a right. ¶4 Yet, while it is axiomatic that a parent has a fundamental right to the care, custody, companionship and management of his or her child, protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions, see In re K.H ., 2021 OK 33, ¶ 26, 507 P.3d 647, 653, the Court of Civil appeals determined that the unmarried putative father wa

2000This constitutional standard is "offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the state's objective." McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 , 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). ¶ 55 We believe that Oklahoma's capital sentencing procedure passes constitutional muster under the rational basis standard.

2000This constitutional standard is "offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the state's objective." McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 , 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). ¶ 55 We believe that Oklahoma's capital sentencing procedure passes constitutional muster under the rational basis standard.

2003Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 82-84 , 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2635-2636 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), notes that economic legislation also comes to the Court with a presumption of constitutionality and that to demonstrate a due process violation, the complaining party must " 'establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.'" (citations omitted) There, the Court concludes the Price-Anderson Act, which imposed limitations on liability for nuclear accidents, passes consiitutional muster under a rational-basis analysis.

2003Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 82-84 , 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2635-2636 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), notes that economic legislation also comes to the Court with a presumption of constitutionality and that to demonstrate a due process violation, the complaining party must " 'establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.'" (citations omitted) There, the Court concludes the Price-Anderson Act, which imposed limitations on liability for nuclear accidents, passes consiitutional muster under a rational-basis analysis.

2024The State contends that Knight properly applied the rational basis test to § 1912(f) of ICWA in keeping with the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535 (1974), which held that discrepancies in the treatment of Native and non-Native Americans are not race-based.

2024The State contends that Knight properly applied the rational basis test to § 1912(f) of ICWA in keeping with the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535 (1974), which held that discrepancies in the treatment of Native and non-Native Americans are not race-based.

2023Pending legislation is no obstacle to this Court deciding a matter properly presented to this body. 4 Justice Darby's dissent suggests that our precedents would require application of the rational basis standard of review, quoting Edmondson v. Pearce , 2004 OK 23 , 91 P.3d 605 , for the proposition that courts may not annul a statute "as being in violation of substantive due process unless it is clearly irrelevant to the policy the Legislature may adopt or is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory." Darby, J., Dissenting Op. ¶ 10 (quoting Pearce , 2004 OK 23, ¶ 35 , 91 P.3d at 624 ).

2023Pending legislation is no obstacle to this Court deciding a matter properly presented to this body. 4 Justice Darby's dissent suggests that our precedents would require application of the rational basis standard of review, quoting Edmondson v. Pearce , 2004 OK 23 , 91 P.3d 605 , for the proposition that courts may not annul a statute "as being in violation of substantive due process unless it is clearly irrelevant to the policy the Legislature may adopt or is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory." Darby, J., Dissenting Op. ¶ 10 (quoting Pearce , 2004 OK 23, ¶ 35 , 91 P.3d at 624 ).

2020Id.

2013We agree and find this classification fails to meet this lower threshold. ¶ 11 In Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 513 F.3d 95 (3rd Cir.2008), a Pennsylvania resident was convicted in New Jersey of a sex offense but was allowed to serve out his probation in Pennsylvania.

2013Doe, 513 F.3d at 100 . ¶ 12 The court found the rational basis test had not been satisfied, holding: [h]ere, the Commonwealth argues that its interest in public safety is a legitimate concern, and that its practice of treating in-state and out-of-state offenders differently is rationally related to its efforts at alleviating this concern.

2005Fabsco Shell & Tube LLC v. Eubank, 84 P.3d 792 , 795 at note 3. .

2003Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976), citing San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 16 , 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1287 , 36 LEd.2d 16 (1973).

2003Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976), citing San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 16 , 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1287 , 36 LEd.2d 16 (1973).

2001Trust Co. v. Banking Bd., 704 P.2d 490 , 497 (Okla. 1985) (If there is a conceivable rational basis for difference in treatment, the statute is valid.). ¶ 18 From the above discussion, it can be seen that since a legitimate purpose of educating the City's children exists and that rationale does not violate the "relaxed" standard of review under the rational basis test, the allocation is constitutional.

2001Further, to examine evidence which might tend to rebut the presumption of constitutionality, Reherman, 679 P.2d at 1300 , would involve questions of fact which are beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S.

2000Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 1998 OK 59 , 961 P.2d 208 . *456 18 Rivas concedes that the standard of serutiny to be used when examining the governmental action in question under an equal protection analysis is the rational basis test.

2000Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 1998 OK 59 , 961 P.2d 208 . *456 18 Rivas concedes that the standard of serutiny to be used when examining the governmental action in question under an equal protection analysis is the rational basis test.

1999Paul, 782 P.2d at 920 , keeping in mind that the rational basis standard is a "paradigm of judicial restraint." Beach, 508 U.S. at 314 .

1999Because neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification is implicated here, see Mistletoe Express Service v. United Parcel Service, 674 P.2d 1 , 9 (Okla. 1983), the rational-basis test is applied.

1996Cooper v. State, 889 P.2d 293, 301-02 (Okl.Cr.1995), reversed on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996).

1996Cooper v. State, 889 P.2d 293, 301-02 (Okl.Cr.1995), reversed on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996).