Opinion ID: 1907719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ms. Park's Constitutional Challenge.

Text: In this jurisdiction, as in others, legislative enactments are protected by a presumption of constitutionality. Hornstein, supra, 560 A.2d at 533. The question is whether Ms. Park has overcome that presumption by showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, id., that her sentence violates the Fifth Amendment. Ms. Park's burden is a formidable one, but I am satisfied that she has met it. Ms. Park contends in essence that the sentence imposed upon her has deprived her of liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [25] The guaranty of due process demands only that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a reasonable and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained. Lapides v. Clark, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 102, 176 F.2d 619, 620, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 860, 70 S.Ct. 101, 94 L.Ed. 527 (1949); see also Gibson v. United States, 602 A.2d 117, 119-20 (D.C. 1992) (applying rational basis test to allegation that defendant's sentence violated equal protection principles). The test, then, is one of rationality. [O]ur determination of the existence of a rational basis for the distinction contained in the statute is limited to whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support for it. Gibson, supra, 602 A.2d at 120 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The legislature is not required to articulate its reasons for enacting the challenged provision; if the reasons for the legislative action are plausible, judicial inquiry is at an end. United States R.R. Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 179, 101 S.Ct. 453, 461-62, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980); Backman v. United States, 516 A.2d 923, 928 (D.C.1986) (per curiam) (Ferren, J., concurring in the result). Conversely, if the reasons for the Council's actions are not plausible  if the legislation lacks a rational basis  then it does not pass constitutional muster.