rational basis test in Wisconsin

2006Fund, 2005 WI 125, ¶ 63 , 284 Wis. 2d 573 , 701 N.W.2d 440 (citation omitted). 5 In his argument, Lynch uses the five-part formulation of the rational basis test from Aicher v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2000 WI 98, ¶ 58 , 237 Wis. 2d 99 , 613 N.W.2d 849 : (1) the classification must be based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it cannot be based only on existing circumstances (that is, it must not preclude addition to the numbers in the class); (4) it must apply equally to all members of the class; and (5) the characteristics of the c

2006Fund, 2005 WI 125, ¶ 63 , 284 Wis. 2d 573 , 701 N.W.2d 440 (citation omitted). 5 In his argument, Lynch uses the five-part formulation of the rational basis test from Aicher v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2000 WI 98, ¶ 58 , 237 Wis. 2d 99 , 613 N.W.2d 849 : (1) the classification must be based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it cannot be based only on existing circumstances (that is, it must not preclude addition to the numbers in the class); (4) it must apply equally to all members of the class; and (5) the characteristics of the c

2005Co. v. Emery, 178 Wis. 147 , 189 N.W. 564 (1922); State v. Interstate Blood Bank, Inc., 65 Wis. 2d 482, 489 , 222 N.W.2d 912 (1974)). [87] Stanhope, 90 Wis. 2d at 843 . [88] Aicher, 237 Wis. 2d 99 , ś 66. [89] Doering, 193 Wis. 2d at 132 (quoting James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 140 (1972)). [90] Doering, 193 Wis. 2d at 132 ("the rational basis test is `not a toothless one'"), quoting Schweiker, 450 U.S. at 234 (quoted with approval in Wis. Wine & Spirit Inst. v. Ley, 141 Wis. 2d 958, 964 , 416 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1987)).

2005Doering, 193 Wis. 2d at 132 ("the rational basis test is 'not a toothless one'"), quoting Schweiker, 450 U.S. at 234 (quoted with approval in Wis. Wine & Spirit Inst. v. Ley, 141 Wis. 2d 958, 964 , 416 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1987)).

2014While courts express various iterations of the rational basis test, we have often quoted the United States Supreme Court's articulation in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-26 (1961): [The Equal Protection Clause] permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others.

2014Having rejected the premise that Act 10 implicates a fundamental right, the plaintiffs' equal protection claim necessarily fails under rational basis review. ¶76 While courts express various iterations of the rational basis test, we have often quoted the United States Supreme Court's articulation in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-26 (1961): 20 Generally, when considering an equal protection challenge, this court will uphold the statute if we find that the legislative classification is supported by a rational basis.

2003To keep shut up: imprison." WebsteR's II New College DICTIONARY 236 (1995). 3 Contrary to Griffin's assertion that we should consider his claim under the strict scrutiny standard of review, the appropriate test is whether rational basis exists for the different treatment of Oklahoma prisoners and Wisconsin prisoners housed in Oklahoma pursuant to the department's contract with CCA See, e.g., McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 270-73 (1973) (using the rational basis test to conclude that denying good time credits for jail time but allowing credits for time spent in prison was not a denial of eq

1981Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 421 (1974); McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 270, 276 (1974); United States ex rel.

2005We explained that "[u]nder the rational basis test, a statute is unconstitutional if the legislature applied an irrational or arbitrary classification when it enacted the provision." Aicher, 237 Wis. 2d 99, ¶ 57 (citing Omernik v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 6, 18-19 , 218 N.W.2d 734 (1974)).

2005We explained that "[u]nder the rational basis test, a statute is unconstitutional if the legislature applied an irrational or arbitrary classification when it enacted the provision." Aicher, 237 Wis. 2d 99, ¶ 57 (citing Omernik v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 6, 18-19 , 218 N.W.2d 734 (1974)).

2025See Smith, 323 Wis. 2d 377, ¶12 . ¶48 Johnson also argues that it would be “fundamentally unfair for the government to allow the sale, purchase and use of [L]-meth without a prescription, but then punish that conduct if it is combined with driving, regardless of impairment.” However, this argument fails under the same rational basis analysis undertaken above. ¶49 In sum on this issue, Johnson has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that prohibiting driving with any form of methamphetamine in the blood is 25 No. 2024AP79-CR arbitrary or irrational.

2018When the statute implicates a fundamental right or discriminates against a suspect class, this court applies strict scrutiny and the law will be upheld "only if narrowly tailored 'to serve a compelling state interest.' " Id. (quoting Milwaukee Cty. v. Mary F.-R. , 2013 WI 92 , ¶ 35, 351 Wis. 2d 273 , 839 N.W.2d 581 ). 6 In all other challenges, we review the law under the rational basis test and uphold it "unless it is 'patently arbitrary' and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest." Id. (quoting Smith , 323 Wis. 2d 377 , ¶ 12, 780 N.W.2d 90 ). ¶ 60 No one argues th

2024As the Supreme Court has very recently opined: The rational-basis standard of review is “not a toothless one.” Grand Bazaar, 105 Wis. 2d at 209-10 (citation omitted).

2018The court, applying the rational basis test, cautioned that "we should not blindly rubber stamp legislation enacted under the guise of the city's police power when careful review has revealed no logical link between the legislation and the objective it was enacted to effect." Id. at 218 , 313 N.W.2d 805 .

2021Challenges to these classifications of criminal offenders are subject to the rational basis test.5 See Hilber v. State, 89 Wis. 2d 49, 54 , 277 N.W.2d 839 (1979); State v. Chapman, 175 Wis. 2d 231, 245 , 499 N.W.2d 222 (Ct. App. 1993).

2021Challenges to these classifications of criminal offenders are subject to the rational basis test.5 See Hilber v. State, 89 Wis. 2d 49, 54 , 277 N.W.2d 839 (1979); State v. Chapman, 175 Wis. 2d 231, 245 , 499 N.W.2d 222 (Ct. App. 1993).

2011From Ferdon , an equal protection case, MMAC cites the statement that judicial review under the rational basis standard requires a "thoughtful examination of not only the legislative purpose, but also the relationship between the legislation and the purpose." Ferdon, 284 Wis. 2d 573, ¶ 77 .

2006In analyzing whether a statutory classification meets the rational basis standard, we" 'are obligated to locate or, in the alternative, construct a rationale that might have influenced the legislative determination.'" Ferdon, 284 Wis. 2d 573, ¶ 74 (citations omitted).

1981According to Hilber, 89 Wis. 2d at 54 , 277 N.W.2d at 842 : [D] ifferences in the treatment of criminal offenders have been viewed as being subject to the rational basis test.

1981The Hart court, 89 Wis. 2d at 65, 277 N.W.2d at 847, approved the following statement of the rational basis standard in Omernik v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 6, 18-19 , 218 N.W.2d 734, 741-42 (1974) (footnotes omitted) : A legislative classification is presumed to be valid.

1992Murgia, 427 U.S. at 312-14 . [11, 12] Great deference is afforded to legislative classifications under the rational basis test.

1987See Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia , 427 U.S. 307 , 312 (1976); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 1 , 16 (1973). *Page 46 Under the rational basis standard, a statute is constitutional if it "rationally furthers some legitimate state purpose." Rodriguez , 411 U.S. at 17 ; McDonald v. Bd. of Election Com'rs of Chicago , 394 U.S. 802 , 809 (1969).

2021E.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470 (1991).

2021E.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470 (1991).

2017The State also cites FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993), in which the United States Supreme Court stated, "[LJegislative choice is not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data." The State further notes the rational basis test "does not require the legislature to choose the best or wisest means to achieve its goals.

2014The rational basis test is deferential; the standard of review is "a paradigm of judicial restraint." Federal Commc'ns Comm'n v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 314 (1993).

2017See Smith v. City of Chicago, 457 F.3d 643, 652 (7th Cir. 2006).

2010Smith v. City of Chicago, 457 F.3d 643, 652 (7th Cir. 2006).

2005A legislative enactment involving classifications will pass the rational basis test if it satisfies the following five criteria: "(1) All classification[s] must be based upon substantial distinctions which make one class really different from another. (2) The classification adopted must be germane to the purpose of the law. (3) The classification must not be based upon existing circumstances only. [It must not be so constituted as to preclude addition to the numbers included within a class.] (4) To whatever class a law may apply, it must apply equally to each member thereof. (5) That the chara

2005A legislative enactment involving classifications will pass the rational basis test if it satisfies the following five criteria: "(1) All classification[s] must be based upon substantial distinctions which make one class really different from another. (2) The classification adopted must be germane to the purpose of the law. (3) The classification must not be based upon existing circumstances only. [It must not be so constituted as to preclude addition to the numbers included within a class.] (4) To whatever class a law may apply, it must apply equally to each member thereof. (5) That the chara

2004Conversely, a statute will be held unconstitutional under the rational basis test if the statute is shown to be "patently arbitrary" with "no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest." State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, ¶ 32 ; 255 Wis. 2d 359 ; 647 N.W.2d 851 (quoting State v. McManus, 152 Wis. 2d 113, 131 , 447 N.W.2d 654 (1989)). ¶ 107.

2004Conversely, a statute will be held unconstitutional under the rational basis test if the statute is shown to be "patently arbitrary" with "no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest." State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, ¶ 32 ; 255 Wis. 2d 359 ; 647 N.W.2d 851 (quoting State v. McManus, 152 Wis. 2d 113, 131 , 447 N.W.2d 654 (1989)). ¶ 107.

2017See also State v. Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶ 49 , 360 Wis. 2d 193 , 858 N.W.2d 346 (resolving both equal protection and substantive due process claims by determining whether the challenged state action was rationally related to a legitimate government interest).

2017See also State v. Alger, 2015 WI 3, ¶ 49 , 360 Wis. 2d 193 , 858 N.W.2d 346 (resolving both equal protection and substantive due process claims by determining whether the challenged state action was rationally related to a legitimate government interest).

2007Czapinski, 236 Wis. 2d 316, ¶ 28 . ¶ 71.

2007Czapinski, 236 Wis.2d 316, ¶ 28 , 613 N.W.2d 120 . ¶ 71 In applying rational basis review to equal protection challenges, we are "not concerned with the wisdom or correctness of the legislative determination." Id., ¶ 29, 613 N.W.2d 120 .

2006See, e.g., State v. Jorgensen, 2003 WI 105, ¶¶ 28-41 , 264 Wis. 2d 157 , 667 N.W.2d 318 (statute allowing each judicial district to establish sentencing guidelines for drunk driving); State v. Smart, 2002 WI App 240, ¶¶ 5-12 , 257 Wis. 2d 713 , 652 N.W.2d 429 (statute allowing each judicial district to establish sentencing guidelines for drunk driving); State v. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 47 , 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999) (penalty structure for armed burglary versus unarmed burglary); State v. Block, 222 Wis. 2d 586, 590-95 , 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1998) (classification of some crimes as "se

2006See, e.g., State v. Jorgensen, 2003 WI 105, ¶¶ 28-41 , 264 Wis. 2d 157 , 667 N.W.2d 318 (statute allowing each judicial district to establish sentencing guidelines for drunk driving); State v. Smart, 2002 WI App 240, ¶¶ 5-12 , 257 Wis. 2d 713 , 652 N.W.2d 429 (statute allowing each judicial district to establish sentencing guidelines for drunk driving); State v. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 47 , 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999) (penalty structure for armed burglary versus unarmed burglary); State v. Block, 222 Wis. 2d 586, 590-95 , 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1998) (classification of some crimes as "se