rational basis test in Texas

2023Sonnenschein is contending that the Board Members did not uniformly apply this provision to his application as compared to those of others similarly situated, a colorable claim falling under protection of the equal protection clauses. 8 See Whitworth v. Bynum, 699 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1985) (“Under the rational basis test . . . similarly situated individuals must be treated equally under the statutory classification unless there is a rational basis for not doing so.”); see also Lindquist v. City of Pasadena, 525 F.3d 383 , 386–87 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that equal protection guarantee ex

2022Sonnenschein is contending that the Board Members did not uniformly apply this provision to her application as compared to those of others similarly situated, a colorable claim falling under protection of the equal-protection clauses.9 See Whitworth v. Bynum, 699 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1985) (“Under the rational basis test . . . similarly situated individuals must be treated equally under the statutory classification unless there is a rational basis for not doing so.”); see also Lindquist v. City of Pasadena, 525 F.3d 383 , 386–87 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that equal-protection guarantee ext

2024Neither provision applies here. 28 Pend Oreille, 817 S.W.2d at 40 . 13 considered important by a reasonable person in entering into a voluntary agreement concerning oil and gas properties.” 29 But absent a statutory definition, a decision whether an offer is fair and reasonable “is left to the commission’s discretion.” 30 The decision must only be supported by substantial evidence 31—“a limited standard of review that gives significant deference to the agency in its field of expertise.” 32 “At its core, the substantial evidence rule is a reasonableness test or a rational basis test.” 33 “The c

2021As discussed above, the substantial evidence standard is “[a]t its core … a reasonableness test or a rational basis test.” Id. at 41 .

2020Comm’n of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 179, 185 (Tex. 1994) (“At its core, the substantial evidence rule is a reasonableness test or a rational basis test.”). 31 Tex. Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Tex. 1984). 32 R.R.

2019“Essentially, this is a rational-basis test to determine, as a matter of law, whether an agency’s order finds reasonable support in the record.” Jenkins, 537 S.W.3d at 149 (citing Texas Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dall., Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 , 452–52 (Tex. 1984)); see id. at 149–50 (describing “well-established standard of review”).

2010In City of Cleburne , the Court held that mentally retarded persons are not a suspect class, and that a zoning ordinance requiring a special use permit for homes for the mentally retarded failed the rational-basis test. 473 U.S. at 442-50 , 105 S.Ct. 3249 . 8 .

2010In City of Cleburne , the Court held that mentally retarded persons are not a suspect class, and that a zoning ordinance requiring a special use permit for homes for the mentally retarded failed the rational-basis test. 473 U.S. at 442-50 , 105 S.Ct. 3249 . 8 .

1987Therefore, the rational basis test is used to determine whether the varied treatment of separate classifications "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).

1987Therefore, the rational basis test is used to determine whether the varied treatment of separate classifications "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).

2016Aguirre v. State, 127 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Tex. App.-Austin 2004, no pet.) (citing Whitworth v. Bynum, 699 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1985); Mauldin v. State Bd. of Plumbing Exam’rs, 94 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Tex. App.-Austin 2002, no pet.)).

2008See Mauldin v. Texas State Bd. of Plumbing Exam’rs, 94 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.).

2011Garcia v. Dretke, 388 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 2004).

2011Garcia v. Dretke, 388 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir.2004).

2007On the other hand, a classification that "neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class" will be upheld "so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end." Id. (quoting Romer , 517 U.S. at 631 ); see Mass. Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia , 427 U.S. 307 , 312 nn. 3,4 (1976); see also Plyler , 457 U.S. at 216 (stating that, under the rational-basis standard, a court seeks "only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose").

2001Hooper, 472 U.S. at 618 , 105 S.Ct. 2862 . [7] Because the Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 , 116 S.Ct. 1620 , 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996), implicitly rejected the justification of promoting family values in a rational basis analysis of a statute that discriminated against homosexuals based on sexual orientation, it follows that those same justifications, advanced here, could not satisfy heightened scrutiny.

1994See Whitworth v. Bynum , 699 S.W.2d 194, 195-97 (Tex. 1985) (holding the Texas Automobile Guest Statute unconstitutional under Article I, § 3 though statute earlier upheld by Silver v. Silver , 280 U.S. 117 (1929)); Texas Workers' Compensation Comm'n v. Garcia , 862 S.W.2d 61 , 75 n.5 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1993, writ granted); but see Rose v. Doctors Hosp. , 801 S.W.2d 841, 846 (Tex. 1990) ("Texas cases echo federal standards when determining whether a statute violates equal protection under either provision." (citing Spring Branch , 695 S.W.2d at 559-60 )).

1988Compare Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Sta-mos, 695 S.W.2d at 559 , with Friedman v. American Surety Co., 137 Tex. 149, 160 , 151 S.W.2d 570, 577 (1941).

2025“At its core, the substantial evidence rule is a reasonableness test or a rational basis test.” Id.

2020Comm’n of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 179, 185 (Tex. 1994) (“At its core, the substantial evidence rule is a reasonableness test or a rational basis test.”). 31 Tex. Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Tex. 1984). 32 R.R.

2019See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578 (“The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”); Ex parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255, 266 (Tex. 1981) (“[W]here a privacy interest has been recognized but not afforded ‘fundamental’ status, the [S]tate need only show a rational basis for its interference or regulation in the area.”); Toledo v. State, 519 S.W.3d 273, 281 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d) (“Given the limits expressed in Lawrence, and its application of a rational basis test in that case, we ap

2018Justice Scalia recognized as much in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence : "[N]owhere does the Court's opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a 'fundamental right' under the Due Process Clause...." 539 U.S. at 586 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 (Scalia, J., dissenting). *721 Lawrence also reviewed the right for adults to have consensual sex not as a fundamental right using a strict-scrutiny review, but as a non-fundamental right using language that applied a rational-basis review. 539 U.S. at 578 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 ("The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion int

2006See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 , 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254-55 , 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985); see also City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303-04 , 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516-17 , 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976); Barshop v. Medina Cty.

2006See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 , 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254-55 , 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985); see also City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303-04 , 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516-17 , 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976); Barshop v. Medina Cty.

2020Ctr. at Hous., 243 S.W.3d 741, 747 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (quoting Bd. of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001) (internal citations omitted)). 2.

2016Ctr. at Hous., 243 S.W.3d 741, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (quoting Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 , 121 S. Ct. 955, 964 (2001)).

2015Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 375 (2010). 10 The principal dissent claims “the rational basis standard invokes objective reason as its measure,” a contention difficult to take seriously.37 Legal fictions abound in the law, but the federal “rational basis test” is something special; it is a misnomer, wrapped in an anomaly, inside a contradiction.

2015Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 375 (2010). 10 The principal dissent claims “the rational basis standard invokes objective reason as its measure,” a contention difficult to take seriously.37 Legal fictions abound in the law, but the federal “rational basis test” is something special; it is a misnomer, wrapped in an anomaly, inside a contradiction.

2015Cannady v. State, 11 S.W.3d 205, 215 (Tex. Crim.

2013Regarding the type of review that is warranted here, we have been unable to locate any case applying strict scrutiny to the types of statutes at issue in this case; on the contrary, cases addressing commitment statutes have seemingly employed the rational-basis standard of review, see Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 79 (1992) (explaining that nature of commitment must “bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed”); cf. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 748-49 (1987) (relating that government’s interest in community safety can outweigh liberty inte

2015As the U.S. Supreme Court held almost 80 years ago in United States v. Carolene Products,140 government has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of its action; rather, “the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed.”141 Courts “never require a legislature to articulate its reasons for enacting a statute” and will uphold a law “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” for it.142 Indeed, it is “entirely irrelevant” whether the purported justification for a burdensome law “actually motivated t

2015As the U.S. Supreme Court held almost 80 years ago in United States v. Carolene Products,140 government has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of its action; rather, “the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed.”141 Courts “never require a legislature to articulate its reasons for enacting a statute” and will uphold a law “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” for it.142 Indeed, it is “entirely irrelevant” whether the purported justification for a burdensome law “actually motivated t

2012See Craigmiles v. Giles , 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2002); Cornwell v. Hamilton , 80 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (S.D.

2012See Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir.2002); Cornwell v. Hamilton, 80 F.Supp.2d 1101 (S.D.Cal.1999).

2020Ctr. at Hous., 243 S.W.3d 741, 747 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (quoting Bd. of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001) (internal citations omitted)). 2.

2016Ctr. at Hous., 243 S.W.3d 741, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (quoting Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 , 121 S. Ct. 955, 964 (2001)).

2008Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 631-32 ; see Tex. Const, art.

2008Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 631-32 ; see TEX .

2023Thus, we agree with the Fourteenth Court of Appeals that in order to withstand a facial constitutional challenge, Article 38.371 must merely satisfy the rational basis test, meaning that we will uphold the statute as long as it is “reasonable, not arbitrary, and rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Thomas, 651 S.W.3d at 108 (first citing Schlittler, 488 S.W.3d at 315 ; and then citing Jackson v. State, 807 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d)).

2021See Schlittler v. State, 488 S.W.3d 306, 315 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Estes, 546 S.W.3d at 698 (“Above all, a court should spurn any attempt to turn rational-basis review into a debate over the wisdom, eloquence, or efficacy of the law in question.”).

2019Id. (“Above all, a court should spurn any attempt to turn rational- basis review into a debate over the wisdom, eloquence, or efficacy of the law in question.”).

2014Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993) (Under the rational basis test, "[a] State ... has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification.

2014Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993) (Under the rational basis test, "[a] State ... has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification.

2014A legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”); Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307, 314-15 , 113 S.Ct. 2096 , 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993). .Consol.

2014A legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”); Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307, 314-15 , 113 S.Ct. 2096 , 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993). .Consol.