Opinion ID: 201653
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rational Basis Review Under Romer v. Evans

Text: 39 Having rejected plaintiffs' arguments that the Massachusetts Exclusions should be subjected to strict scrutiny, we conclude by considering whether the exclusions survive rational basis review. [I]f a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996) (striking down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would have precluded protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as failing rational basis review). In this case, we have no difficulty finding that Massachusetts' goal of preventing the establishment of religion is a legitimate one. Additionally, the chosen means clearly bear a rational relation to that end. Thus, the instant case is easily distinguished from Romer, where the Court found that passage of the Colorado amendment could only be explained by `a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group,' which `cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.' Id. at 634, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (quoting Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534, 93 S.Ct. 2821, 37 L.Ed.2d 782 (1973)).