Final answer:
A judge would ask whether the challenged law is necessary and rationally related to a legitimate government interest, applying the rational basis test, or, in cases of certain discriminations, evaluate it using strict scrutiny to ensure the law serves a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a petitioner challenges a certain law in the courts on the grounds of unfair discrimination, a judge would most likely examine the law by asking whether it is necessary or reflects a government preference that is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This involves the application of the rational basis test, where the law must be shown to have a legitimate purpose, such as safety or educational standards, to be considered justified despite its discriminatory effects. However, for discrimination involving race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or national origin, the courts are likely to apply strict scrutiny, which means the government must show a compelling governmental interest, ensure that the law is narrowly tailored, and that it is the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.