rational basis test in Missouri

2019This Court adopted the reasonable basis test in Miners’ Bank v. Clark, 158 S.W. 597, 599 (Mo. 1913), holding “[a] statute is not special or class legislation if it appl[ies] to all alike of a given class, provided the classification thus made is not arbitrary or without a reasonable basis.” Later, this Court explicitly analogized the special law test to the rational basis test contained in equal protection jurisprudence, 7 concluding “the test for ‘special legislation’ . . . involves the same principles and considerations that are involved in determining whether the statute violates equal prot

2008See also Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822, 832 (Mo. banc 1991) (“In essence, the test for ‘special legislation’ under article III, § 40, of the Missouri Constitution, involves the same principles and considerations that are involved in determining whether the statute violates equal protection in a situation where neither a fundamental right nor a suspect class is involved, ie., where a rational basis test applies”).

2022Bd., 988 S.W.2d 513, 516 (Mo. 1999).

2022Bd., 988 S.W.2d 513, 516 (Mo. banc 1999).

2022Sys. v. Pemiscot Cnty., 256 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo. 2008) (quoting Kohring v. Snodgrass, 999 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Mo. 1999)). “[U]nder a rational basis test, the Court does not have to determine whether the [administrative agency] ‘should have’ done something different or whether there is a better means to accomplish the same goal, and certainly not whether the chosen means is the best method.” Linton v. Mo. Veterinary Med.

2022Sys. v. Pemiscot Cnty., 256 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo. banc 2008) (quoting Kohring v. Snodgrass, 999 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Mo. banc 1999)). “[U]nder a rational basis test, [we] do[] not have to determine whether the [department] ‘should have’ done something different or whether there is a better means to accomplish the same goal, and certainly not whether the chosen means is the best method.” Linton v. Mo. Veterinary Med.

2022Sys. v. Pemiscot Cnty., 256 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo. 2008) (quoting Kohring v. Snodgrass, 999 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Mo. 1999)). “[U]nder a rational basis test, the Court does not have to determine whether the [administrative agency] ‘should have’ done something different or whether there is a better means to accomplish the same goal, and certainly not whether the chosen means is the best method.” Linton v. Mo. Veterinary Med.

2022Sys. v. Pemiscot Cnty., 256 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo. banc 2008) (quoting Kohring v. Snodgrass, 999 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Mo. banc 1999)). “[U]nder a rational basis test, [we] do[] not have to determine whether the [department] ‘should have’ done something different or whether there is a better means to accomplish the same goal, and certainly not whether the chosen means is the best method.” Linton v. Mo. Veterinary Med.

2015The rational of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majorit[a]rian political process.” 568 S.W.2d 525, 530 (Mo. banc 1978); see also Adams, 832 S.W.2d at 903 . 17 basis test “is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the state’s objective.” Mahoney, 807 S.W.2d at 512 .

1988See, e.g., Crane v. Riehn, 568 S.W.2d 525 (Mo. banc 1978) (upholding Missouri's wrongful death statute).

2015In most other instances, the statute is presumed constitutional and Missouri courts will apply a rational basis test under which “the statute will be [held] valid as long as it bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state purpose.” Id.-, accord State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, 470 (Mo. banc 2005).

2015In most other instances, the statute is presumed constitutional and Missouri courts will apply a rational basis test under which “the statute will be [held] valid as long as it bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state purpose.” Id.; accord State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, 470 (Mo. banc 2005).

2011Project v. Holden, 959 S.W.2d 100, 104 (Mo. banc 1998) (citing McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961)). “[U]nder a rational basis test, the Court does not have to determine whether the legislature ‘should have’ done something different or whether there is a better means to accomplish the same goal, and certainly not whether the chosen means is the best method.” Linton v. Missouri Veterinary Med.

1999Under a rational basis standard, the three-examination limitation will survive judicial scrutiny if the state's purpose in creating the classification is legitimate and "if any statement of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify the means chosen to accomplish *516 that purpose." Missourians for Tax Justice Education Project v. Holden, 959 S.W.2d 100, 103-04 (Mo. banc 1998)(quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961)).

2008To prevail under that test, PA-CARS must show that the classifications set forth in challenged statutes “[do] not rest upon any reasonable basis and [are] purely arbitrary.” Miss Kitty’s Saloon, Inc. v. Mo. Dep’t of Revenue, 41 S.W.3d 466, 467 (Mo. banc 2001).

2005Miss Kitty’s Saloon, Inc. v. Missouri Dep’t of Revenue, 41 S.W.3d 466, 467 (Mo. banc 2001).

1986Collins v. Director of Revenue, 691 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Mo. banc 1985).

1985Collins v. Director of Revenue, 691 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Mo. banc 1985).

2013This Court has noted that “[t]he test for whether a statute with an open-ended classification is special legislation under article III, section 40 of the Missouri Constitution is similar to the rational basis test used in equal protection analysis.” Id.

2012But where, as here, the statute is not found to be a special law, then the rational basis test applies, under which the burden “is on the party challenging the constitutionality of the statute to show that the statutory classification is arbitrary and without a rational relationship to a legislative purpose.” Jefferson Cnty., 205 S.W.3d at 870 .

2015Under the rational basis test, this Court will uphold the law if it is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Id.', accord Batek, 920 S.W.2d at 898-99 .

2015Under the rational basis test, this Court will uphold the law if it is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Id.; accord Batek, 920 S.W.2d at 898-99 .

2025City of Normandy v. Greitens, 518 S.W.3d 183, 202 (Mo. banc 2017) (“City of Normandy I”). 1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 unless otherwise noted. 1 Later, in City of Aurora v. Spectra Communications Group, LLC, 592 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. banc 2019), this Court rejected the closed-ended/open-ended dichotomy (which had been used to evaluate local or special laws claims in City of Normandy I and other recent cases) in favor of the rational basis analysis (which this Court previously used in such cases for more than a century).

2022Mo. State Univ., 789 S.W.2d 41, 44 (Mo. App. 1990) (emphasis in original) (citing Nanette K.

2022Nor did the circuit court consider in weighing those equities the burden that sustaining the state’s motion would place on the municipalities, which would be forced to comply with sections 67.287.2 and 479.359.2 immediately upon the 2016 injunction being dissolved. 6 5 Indeed, the circuit court held, “once the party seeking relief from an injunction demonstrates a ‘significant change in the law’ on which the injunction was based, enforcing the injunction is no longer equitable.” The circuit court relied on Agostini, but Agostini did not overrule Rufo’s statement that relief from judgment “may

2021Under rational basis review, the party challenging the constitutional validity of the statute must overcome the presumption the statute has a rational basis “by a clear showing of arbitrariness and irrationality.” Cosby v. Treasurer of State, 579 S.W.3d 202, 209 (Mo banc. 2019) (citation omitted).

2019“Under rational basis review, this Court will uphold a statute if it finds a reasonably conceivable 21 state of facts that provide a rational basis for the classifications.” Estate of Overbey v. Chad Franklin Nat’l Auto Sales N., LLC, 361 S.W.3d 364, 378 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

2019This Court adopted the reasonable basis test in Miners’ Bank v. Clark, 158 S.W. 597, 599 (Mo. 1913), holding “[a] statute is not special or class legislation if it appl[ies] to all alike of a given class, provided the classification thus made is not arbitrary or without a reasonable basis.” Later, this Court explicitly analogized the special law test to the rational basis test contained in equal protection jurisprudence, 7 concluding “the test for ‘special legislation’ . . . involves the same principles and considerations that are involved in determining whether the statute violates equal prot

2019Owners v. Wilson, 208 P.2d 604, 612 (Kan. 1949); Johnson v. Gans Furniture Indus., 114 S.W.3d 850, 856-57 (Ky. 2003); Arshad v. City of Kenner, 95 So.3d 477, 482 (La. 2012); State v. Mayo, 75 A. 295, 297-98 (Me. 1909); Green v. N.B.S., Inc., 976 A.2d 279, 288-89 (Md. 2009); Route One Liquors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Admin. & Fin., 785 N.E.2d 1222 , 1231-32 (Mass. 2003); Chamski v. Cowan, 284 N.W. 711, 716 (Mich. 1939); State v. Forge, 262 N.W.2d 341 , 347 13 The rational basis analysis served the Court and the language of the constitution well for more than a century.

2019Owners v. Wilson, 208 P.2d 604, 612 (Kan. 1949); Johnson v. Gans Furniture Indus., 114 S.W.3d 850, 856-57 (Ky. 2003); Arshad v. City of Kenner, 95 So.3d 477, 482 (La. 2012); State v. Mayo, 75 A. 295, 297-98 (Me. 1909); Green v. N.B.S., Inc., 976 A.2d 279, 288-89 (Md. 2009); Route One Liquors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Admin. & Fin., 785 N.E.2d 1222 , 1231-32 (Mass. 2003); Chamski v. Cowan, 284 N.W. 711, 716 (Mich. 1939); State v. Forge, 262 N.W.2d 341 , 347 13 The rational basis analysis served the Court and the language of the constitution well for more than a century.

2019Owners v. Wilson, 208 P.2d 604, 612 (Kan. 1949); Johnson v. Gans Furniture Indus., 114 S.W.3d 850, 856-57 (Ky. 2003); Arshad v. City of Kenner, 95 So.3d 477, 482 (La. 2012); State v. Mayo, 75 A. 295, 297-98 (Me. 1909); Green v. N.B.S., Inc., 976 A.2d 279, 288-89 (Md. 2009); Route One Liquors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Admin. & Fin., 785 N.E.2d 1222 , 1231-32 (Mass. 2003); Chamski v. Cowan, 284 N.W. 711, 716 (Mich. 1939); State v. Forge, 262 N.W.2d 341 , 347 13 The rational basis analysis served the Court and the language of the constitution well for more than a century.

2019See, e.g., State v. Gilley, 785 S.W.2d 538, 540-41 (Mo. banc 1990) (“The state concludes that these substantial burdens on the state serve as a rational basis for the legislative enactment of § 508.355.

2019Owners v. Wilson, 208 P.2d 604, 612 (Kan. 1949); Johnson v. Gans Furniture Indus., 114 S.W.3d 850, 856-57 (Ky. 2003); Arshad v. City of Kenner, 95 So.3d 477, 482 (La. 2012); State v. Mayo, 75 A. 295, 297-98 (Me. 1909); Green v. N.B.S., Inc., 976 A.2d 279, 288-89 (Md. 2009); Route One Liquors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Admin. & Fin., 785 N.E.2d 1222 , 1231-32 (Mass. 2003); Chamski v. Cowan, 284 N.W. 711, 716 (Mich. 1939); State v. Forge, 262 N.W.2d 341 , 347 13 The rational basis analysis served the Court and the language of the constitution well for more than a century.

2019Owners v. Wilson, 208 P.2d 604, 612 (Kan. 1949); Johnson v. Gans Furniture Indus., 114 S.W.3d 850, 856-57 (Ky. 2003); Arshad v. City of Kenner, 95 So.3d 477, 482 (La. 2012); State v. Mayo, 75 A. 295, 297-98 (Me. 1909); Green v. N.B.S., Inc., 976 A.2d 279, 288-89 (Md. 2009); Route One Liquors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Admin. & Fin., 785 N.E.2d 1222 , 1231-32 (Mass. 2003); Chamski v. Cowan, 284 N.W. 711, 716 (Mich. 1939); State v. Forge, 262 N.W.2d 341 , 347 13 The rational basis analysis served the Court and the language of the constitution well for more than a century.

2019Owners v. Wilson, 208 P.2d 604, 612 (Kan. 1949); Johnson v. Gans Furniture Indus., 114 S.W.3d 850, 856-57 (Ky. 2003); Arshad v. City of Kenner, 95 So.3d 477, 482 (La. 2012); State v. Mayo, 75 A. 295, 297-98 (Me. 1909); Green v. N.B.S., Inc., 976 A.2d 279, 288-89 (Md. 2009); Route One Liquors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Admin. & Fin., 785 N.E.2d 1222 , 1231-32 (Mass. 2003); Chamski v. Cowan, 284 N.W. 711, 716 (Mich. 1939); State v. Forge, 262 N.W.2d 341 , 347 13 The rational basis analysis served the Court and the language of the constitution well for more than a century.