Opinion ID: 577187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review of Statutes

Text: 21 Defendants claim that their due process rights have been violated by a statute that creates arbitrary classifications of offenders. Because defendants do not allege discrimination against a suspect class, the statute will be sustained unless Congress had no reasonable basis for creating the questioned classifications. United States v. Holmes, 838 F.2d 1175, 1177 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1058, 108 S.Ct. 2829, 100 L.Ed.2d 930 (1988) ([A] statute [that] does not discriminate on racial grounds or against a suspect class ... will be sustained in the absence of persuasive evidence that Congress had no reasonable basis for drawing the lines it did). United States v. Holmes, 838 F.2d 1175, 1177 (11th Cir.1988) (emphasis added); United States v. Sorondo, 845 F.2d 945 (11th Cir.1988). Further, a statute will be upheld even if it is not the best means of dealing with a problem: 22 Our responsibility is not to determine whether this was the correct judgment or whether it best accomplishes congressional objectives; rather, our responsibility is only to determine whether Congress' judgment was rational. 23 United States v. Holmes, 838 F.2d at 1178; see also United States v. Buckner, 894 F.2d 975, 978 (8th Cir.1990). 24 The burden of reasonableness is not a particularly onerous burden for Congress to bear. When a legislative judgment is questioned, the court's role must be restricted to the issue of whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support for it. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 154, 58 S.Ct. 778, 784, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1937) (emphasis added). In other words, any rationale Congress could have had for enacting the statute can validate the legislation, regardless of whether Congress actually considered that rationale at the time the bill was passed.