rational basis test in Idaho

1992Freeman Co., 117 Idaho 706, 711 , 791 P.2d 1285, 1290 (1990) (“[T]he appropriate test to review a statute which impacts social or economic areas is the rational basis test which requires only that the statute ‘advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.’ ”) (Citing Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 374 , 659 P.2d 111, 128 (1983).) The Act’s distinction between commercial and non-commercial outfitting does not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

1992Freeman Co., 117 Idaho 706, 711 , 791 P.2d 1285, 1290 (1990) (“[T]he appropriate test to review a statute which impacts social or economic areas is the rational basis test which requires only that the statute ‘advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.’ ”) (Citing Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 374 , 659 P.2d 111, 128 (1983).) The Act’s distinction between commercial and non-commercial outfitting does not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

2014Bd. of Comm’rs, 153 Idaho 298, 315 , 281 P.3d 1076, 1093 (2012).

2014Bd. of Comm’rs, 153 Idaho 298, 315 , 281 P.3d 1076, 1093 (2012).

2012Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial Council, 136 Idaho 63, 69 , 28 P.3d 1006, 1012 (2001). “[Substantive due process requires that ‘a statute bear a reasonable relationship to a permissible legislative objective.’ ” Id. (quoting Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper, 133 Idaho 82, 90 , 982 P.2d 917, 925 (1999)).

2012Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial Council, 136 Idaho 63, 69 , 28 P.3d 1006, 1012 (2001). “[Substantive due process requires that ‘a statute bear a reasonable relationship to a permissible legislative objective.’ ” Id. (quoting Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper, 133 Idaho 82, 90 , 982 P.2d 917, 925 (1999)).

2011In this context, this Court has stated that: “Substantive due process” means “that state action which deprives [a person] of life, liberty, or property must have a rational basis — that is to say, the reason for the deprivation may not be so inadequate that the judiciary will characterize it as ‘arbitrary.’ ” Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial Council, 136 Idaho 63, 69 , 28 P.3d 1006, 1012 (2001) (quoting Pace v. Hymas, 111 Idaho 581, 586 , 726 P.2d 693, 698 (1986)).

2011In this context, this Court has stated that: “Substantive due process” means “that state action which deprives [a person] of life, liberty, or property must have a rational basis — that is to say, the reason for the deprivation may not be so inadequate that the judiciary will characterize it as ‘arbitrary.’ ” Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial Council, 136 Idaho 63, 69 , 28 P.3d 1006, 1012 (2001) (quoting Pace v. Hymas, 111 Idaho 581, 586 , 726 P.2d 693, 698 (1986)).

2010See Idaho Water Resources Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535 , 548 P.2d 35 (1976).

2010See Idaho Water Resources Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535 , 548 P.2d 35 (1976).

2021Id. (stating that the rational basis test 13 is employed when the strict scrutiny test and means-focus test are not applicable).

1992Freeman Co., 117 Idaho 706, 711 , 791 P.2d 1285, 1290 (1990) (“[T]he appropriate test to review a statute which impacts social or economic areas is the rational basis test which requires only that the statute ‘advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.’ ”) (Citing Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 374 , 659 P.2d 111, 128 (1983).) The Act’s distinction between commercial and non-commercial outfitting does not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

2004The Court must analyze the constitutionality of I.C. § 72-451 under a rational basis test because it involves an “economic and social welfare” provision and, therefore, the statute “must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.” Id. at 142, 868 P.2d at 470 ; Heese v. A & T Trucking, 102 Idaho 598, 600 , 635 P.2d 962, 964 (1981).

2004The Court must analyze the constitutionality of I.C. § 72-451 under a rational basis test because it involves an “economic and social welfare” provision and, therefore, the statute “must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.” Id. at 142, 868 P.2d at 470 ; Heese v. A & T Trucking, 102 Idaho 598, 600 , 635 P.2d 962, 964 (1981).

1999Under the “rational basis” or “rational relationship” test, the regulation or statute in question should be upheld as long as its objectives “can reasonably be said to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public.” Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 871 , 555 P.2d 399, 411 (1976).

1984See, State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236 , 486 P.2d 247 (1971) ( dictum )." Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho at 864 , 555 P.2d at 404 . [5] At oral argument it was suggested that the "reasonable" or "rational" element of the rational basis test might require that the rationality of the legislative decision be "fair and substantial," because of the decision in Packard v. Joint School Dist.

2021Under the rational basis test, a classification will survive scrutiny if there is “any conceivable state of facts which will support it.” Id. (quoting Bint v. Creative Forest Prods., 108 Idaho 116, 120 , 697 P.2d 818, 822 (1985)). 1.

2021Under the rational basis test, a classification will survive scrutiny if there is “any conceivable state of facts which will support it.” Id. (quoting Bint v. Creative Forest Prods., 108 Idaho 116, 120 , 697 P.2d 818, 822 (1985)). 1.

2015State v. Hart, 135 Idaho 827, 830 , 25 P.3d 850, 853 (2001).

2015State v. Hart, 135 Idaho 827, 830 , 25 P.3d 850, 853 (2001).

2009See, e.g., Tucker v. Branker, 142 F.3d 1294, 1301 (D.C.Cir.1998) (holding that “making the filing-fee provision of the PLRA applicable to indigent prisoners but not to other indigent civil plaintiffs has a rational basis and does not violate the equal protection component of due process”); Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17, 20 (2d Cir.1997) (holding that “the Act easily passes the rational basis test.

2009Cir. 1998) (holding that “making the filing-fee provision of the PLRA applicable to indigent prisoners but not to other indigent civil plaintiffs has a rational basis and does not violate the equal protection component of due process”); Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that “the Act easily passes the rational basis test.

2008Unlike an occupational disease, by definition, an accident “can be reasonably located as to time when and place where it occurred____” I.C. § 72-102(18)(b); see also Sundquist v. Precision Steel & Gypsum, Inc., 141 Idaho 450, 456 , 111 P.3d 135, 141 (2005) (stating an occupational disease develops over time).

2008Unlike an occupational disease, by definition, an accident “can be reasonably located as to time when and place where it occurred____” I.C. § 72-102(18)(b); see also Sundquist v. Precision Steel & Gypsum, Inc., 141 Idaho 450, 456 , 111 P.3d 135, 141 (2005) (stating an occupational disease develops over time).

2002Anderson cites the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Olech v. Village of Willowbrook for the proposition that selective enforcement based entirely upon subjective ill will on the part of a government official amounts to an “arbitrary classification” that fails the rational basis test. 160 F.3d 386 (7th Cir.1998), aff'd on other grounds, Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 , 120 S.Ct. 1073 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000).

2002Anderson cites the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Olech v. Village of Willowbrook for the proposition that selective enforcement based entirely upon subjective ill will on the part of a government official amounts to an “arbitrary classification” that fails the rational basis test. 160 F.3d 386 (7th Cir.1998), aff'd on other grounds, Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 , 120 S.Ct. 1073 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000).

1992The rational basis test “requires only that the statute ‘advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.’ ” Johnson, 106 Idaho at 869-70 , 684 P.2d at 271 -72 (citing Leliefeld, 104 Idaho at 374, 659 P.2d at 128).

1992The rational basis test “requires only that the statute ‘advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.’ ” Johnson, 106 Idaho at 869-70 , 684 P.2d at 271 -72 (citing Leliefeld, 104 Idaho at 374, 659 P.2d at 128).

2022In applying the rational basis test, it makes no difference whether the classification is challenged under the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution, for the test is the same: “Under either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Idaho Constitution, a classification will survive rational basis analysis if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Gomersall, 168 Idaho at 319, 483 P.3d at 376 (quoting Meisner v. Potlatch Corp., 131 Idaho 258, 262 , 954 P.2d 676, 680 (1998)).

2022In applying the rational basis test, it makes no difference whether the classification is challenged under the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution, for the test is the same: “Under either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Idaho Constitution, a classification will survive rational basis analysis if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Gomersall, 168 Idaho at 319, 483 P.3d at 376 (quoting Meisner v. Potlatch Corp., 131 Idaho 258, 262 , 954 P.2d 676, 680 (1998)).

1993“The established rule in Idaho is that the rational basis test is the appropriate standard of review of classifications made for tax purposes.” Tarbox v. Tax Comm’n, 107 Idaho at 959 , 695 P.2d at 344 ; Sheppard v. State Dep’t of Employment, 103 Idaho 501, 504 , 650 P.2d 643, 646 (1982).

1993“The established rule in Idaho is that the rational basis test is the appropriate standard of review of classifications made for tax purposes.” Tarbox v. Tax Comm’n, 107 Idaho at 959 , 695 P.2d at 344 ; Sheppard v. State Dep’t of Employment, 103 Idaho 501, 504 , 650 P.2d 643, 646 (1982).

1984This court has limited review under that standard to statutes of a blatantly discriminatory nature. 2 The rational basis test “requires ‘that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.’ ” Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, 103 Idaho 19, 24-5 , 644 P.2d 341 (1982) (quoting Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074,1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981)).

1984This court has limited review under that standard to statutes of a blatantly discriminatory nature. 2 The rational basis test “requires ‘that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.’ ” Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corporation v. Hamill, 103 Idaho 19, 24-5 , 644 P.2d 341 (1982) (quoting Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 , 101 S.Ct. 1074,1080 , 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981)).

2002Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. Evans, 123 Idaho 573 , 850 P.2d 724 (1993).

1993However, the Court in Thompson reversed the district court, and therefore the majority is correct that the Thompson case authoritatively decided the equal protection issue, both based upon the "right result-wrong theory" rule, and upon the merits of the rational basis test analysis of the Thompson Court as recognized in Part 2(b) of the majority opinion. [4] III However, I dissent from Part 3 of the Court's opinion in which the majority concludes that, "Thompson Does Not Hold Whether The `Thoroughness' Requirement of the Education Clause Was Violated in That Case and Thus Does Not Foreclose Th

1993“The established rule in Idaho is that the rational basis test is the appropriate standard of review of classifications made for tax purposes.” Tarbox v. Tax Comm’n, 107 Idaho at 959 , 695 P.2d at 344 ; Sheppard v. State Dep’t of Employment, 103 Idaho 501, 504 , 650 P.2d 643, 646 (1982).

1993“The established rule in Idaho is that the rational basis test is the appropriate standard of review of classifications made for tax purposes.” Tarbox v. Tax Comm’n, 107 Idaho at 959 , 695 P.2d at 344 ; Sheppard v. State Dep’t of Employment, 103 Idaho 501, 504 , 650 P.2d 643, 646 (1982).

1986The appropriate standard of review, under the language of Jones and Leliefield, would seem to be that applicable to economic legislation, that being the rational basis test of McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 , (1961), and Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 , 90 S.Ct. 1153 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).

1986The appropriate standard of review, under the language of Jones and Leliefield, would seem to be that applicable to economic legislation, that being the rational basis test of McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 , (1961), and Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 , 90 S.Ct. 1153 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).