rational basis test in Michigan

2023Stated differently, “legislation challenged on equal protection grounds is accorded a presumption of constitutionality, and it is reviewed by applying a rational basis standard.” Doe v Dep’t of Social Servs, 439 Mich 650, 662 ; 487 NW2d 166 (1992).

2023Stated differently, “legislation challenged on equal protection grounds is accorded a presumption of constitutionality, and it is reviewed by applying a rational basis standard.” Doe v Dep’t of Social Servs, 439 Mich 650, 662 ; 487 NW2d 166 (1992).

2011Therefore, under the rational-basis standard, “ ‘courts will uphold legislation as long as that legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.’ ” Phillips, 470 Mich at 433 , quoting Crego v Coleman, 463 Mich 248, 259 ; 615 NW2d 218 (2000).

2011Therefore, under the rational-basis standard, “ ‘courts will uphold legislation as long as that legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.’ ” Phillips, 470 Mich at 433 , quoting Crego v Coleman, 463 Mich 248, 259 ; 615 NW2d 218 (2000).

2025“Under the rational basis test, the legislation is presumed to be constitutional and the party challenging the statute has the burden of proving that the legislation is arbitrary and thus irrational.” People v Pitts, 222 Mich App 260, 273 ; 564 NW2d 93 (1997).

2025“Under the rational basis test, the legislation is presumed to be constitutional and the party challenging the statute has the burden of proving that the legislation is arbitrary and thus irrational.” People v Pitts, 222 Mich App 260, 273 ; 564 NW2d 93 (1997).

2022“Under rational-basis review, courts will uphold legislation as long as that legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.” Harvey v State, Dep't of Mgt and Budget, Bureau of Retirement Servs, 469 Mich 1, 7 ; 664 NW2d 767 (2003).

2022“Under rational-basis review, courts will uphold legislation as long as that legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.” Harvey v State, Dep't of Mgt and Budget, Bureau of Retirement Servs, 469 Mich 1, 7 ; 664 NW2d 767 (2003).

2005The statute at issue is reviewed pursuant to the rational basis test. [4] A review pursuant to the rational basis standard does not examine "the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the legislation." Muskegon Area Rental Ass'n v. City of Muskegon, 465 Mich. 456, 464 , 636 N.W.2d 751 (2001) (citation deleted).

2005The statute at issue is reviewed pursuant to the rational basis test. [4] A review pursuant to the rational basis standard does not examine "the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the legislation." Muskegon Area Rental Ass'n v. City of Muskegon, 465 Mich. 456, 464 , 636 N.W.2d 751 (2001) (citation deleted).

2007Id.

2007Id.

2018Kyser v. Kasson Twp. , 486 Mich. 514 , 522 n 2, 786 N.W.2d 543 (2010).

2018Kyser v. Kasson Twp. , 486 Mich. 514 , 522 n 2, 786 N.W.2d 543 (2010).

2007Id.

2004Va rgo, supra, 457 Mich 60 .

2004The rational basis test considers whether the “classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.” Id.

2004The rational basis test considers whether the "classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest." Id.

1988Petitioners first claim that the probate court erred by applying the traditional rational basis test rather than what petitioners refer to as the "means scrutiny” test derived from Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975), and Alexander v Detroit, 392 Mich 30 ; 219 NW2d 41 (1974).

1988Petitioners first claim that the probate court erred by applying the traditional rational basis test rather than what petitioners refer to as the "means scrutiny” test derived from Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975), and Alexander v Detroit, 392 Mich 30 ; 219 NW2d 41 (1974).

2024Andary, 512 Mich at 268; Barrow, 301 Mich App at 419-420 .

2024“Traditionally, the rational basis test applies where no suspect factors are present or where no fundamental right is implicated.” Barrow, 301 Mich App at 419 .3 Here, defendant concedes that no circumstances exist that would warrant heightened scrutiny and that his claim is subject to rational basis review.

2023“Where the proponent of an equal protection argument is not a member of a protected class, or does not allege violation of a fundamental right, the equal protection claim is reviewed using the rational basis test.” Id.

2022“Where the proponent of an equal protection argument is not a member of a protected class, or does not allege violation of a fundamental right, the equal protection claim is reviewed using the rational basis test.” Houdek v Centreville Twp, 276 Mich App 568, 585-586 ; 741 NW2d 587 (2007).

2015Consequently, because no suspect class --based upon age, disability, race, or gender-- is being singled out and no fundamental right is being affected, we apply the rational basis test to determine whether the 1999 amendment violates equal protection.14 “Under the rational basis test, legislation is presumed to be constitutional and will survive review if the classification scheme is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Zdrojewski, 254 Mich App at 80 .

2015Consequently, because no suspect class — based on age, disability, race, or gender — is being singled out and no fundamental right is being affected, we apply the rational basis test to determine whether the 1999 amendment violates equal protection. 14 “Under the rational basis test, legislation is presumed to be constitutional and will survive review if the classification scheme is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Zdrojewski, 254 Mich App at 80 .

2015Initially, the rational basis analysis in both cases was rather cursory, as Proctor, 248 Mich App at 469 , summarily concluded “that the Legislature’s FOIA exclusions singling out incarcerated prisoners rationally relate to the Legislature’s legitimate interest in conserving the scarce governmental resources squandered responding to frivolous FOIA requests by incarcerated prisoners.” The pertinent analysis in Morales was similarly short, as the opinion cited Proctor and concluded that “the exclusion of prisoners’ ability under MCL 791.234 to appeal parole denials is rationally related to the L

2015Initially, the rational-basis analysis in both cases was rather cursory, as Proctor, 248 Mich App at 469 , summarily concluded “that the Legislature’s FOIA exclusions singling out incarcerated prisoners rationally relate to the Legislature’s legitimate interest in conserving the scarce governmental resources squandered responding to frivolous FOIA requests by incarcerated prisoners.” The pertinent analysis in Morales was similarly short, as the opinion cited Proctor and concluded that “the exclusion of prisoners’ ability under MCL 791.234 to appeal parole denials is rationally related to the L

2015“Under the rational basis test, the challenged legislation ‘is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging it bears a heavy burden of rebutting that presumption.’ ” Parole of Hill, 298 Mich App at 421 , quoting People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549, 570 ; 773 NW2d 616 (2009).

2015“Under the rational basis test, the challenged legislation ‘is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging it bears a heavy burden of rebutting that presumption.’ ” Parole of Hill, 298 Mich App at 421 , quoting People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549, 570 ; 773 NW2d 616 (2009).

1999Under the traditional or rational basis test, a classification will stand unless it is shown to be “ ‘essentially arbitrary.’ ” Id., quoting Lindsley, supra. Stated differently, one who attacks an enactment must show that it is “arbitrary and wholly unrelated in a rational way to the objective of the statute.” Smith v Employment Security Comm, 410 Mich 231, 271 ; 301 NW2d 285 (1981).

1976The Court found that the legislation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause and reiterated the rationality test of Lindsley, supra: 7 "We turn then to examine this state classification under the rational-basis standard.

1987Consequently, the Court finds that the charter provision, which was adopted *556 pursuant to the Home Rule Cities Act, MCL 117.1 et seq. [MSA 5.2071 et seq.], does not conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of this state. [5] Plaintiff also urges this Court to find that the charter provision fails the rational basis test, the standard for traditional equal protection The rational basis test was described by this Court in In re Contempt of Stone, 154 Mich App 121, 128-129 ; 397 NW2d 244 (1986), lv den 426 Mich 854 (1986): The statute needs only a rational basis to be vali

1987Consequently, the Court finds that the charter provision, which was adopted *556 pursuant to the Home Rule Cities Act, MCL 117.1 et seq. [MSA 5.2071 et seq.], does not conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of this state. [5] Plaintiff also urges this Court to find that the charter provision fails the rational basis test, the standard for traditional equal protection The rational basis test was described by this Court in In re Contempt of Stone, 154 Mich App 121, 128-129 ; 397 NW2d 244 (1986), lv den 426 Mich 854 (1986): The statute needs only a rational basis to be vali