Final answer:
The rational basis test is a legal standard for evaluating discrimination, requiring that a law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, with a burden of proof on those challenging the law.
Step-by-step explanation:
Rational Basis Review in Law
The question pertains to the rational basis test, which is a standard used by the courts to evaluate most forms of discrimination. Under this test, an action or law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. If a law meets this test, it's considered to have a legitimate secular purpose. This means it's non-religious in nature and does not result in excessive government entanglement with religious practices. The burden of proof lies on those challenging the law or discriminatory practice to demonstrate that there is no good reason for their different treatment.
Historically significant cases, such as Lemon v. Kurtzman and Wisconsin v. Yoder, have set precedents regarding the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution, respectively. Examples of rational basis review include prohibiting blind people from driving for public safety reasons and universities setting academic standards for admission. These examples reflect policies that are deemed rationally related to legitimate government purposes, such as public safety and educational standards.
The Sherbert test is another standard, which applies to the Free Exercise Clause and requires a compelling governmental interest and for the law to be narrowly tailored. A law that restricts certain practices must show a very good reason for the restriction and that no less restrictive means are available.