Court Opinion

ID: 9508287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:30:11.386905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:30.589677
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result and in the decision that the right to welfare is not a fundamental right but I do not concur in the adoption of a middle-tier standard of review in this case.
In my view, the legislation under attack does not meet the existing rational basis test and should therefore be declared unconstitu*436tional. Thus, I do not perceive a need to adopt an additional test requiring a higher standard of review for legislation that may be enacted in the future. It appears that the newly adopted test, described as a middle-tier standard of review, actually replaces the rational basis test, even though no party to the action argued for its adoption.
In my opinion, the majority, by requiring the legislature to establish a factual record in its classification procedure, may have limited possible future legislative alternatives, because of time constraints existing in this matter, to the point where adequate welfare benefits may not be available to the needy.