A state law prohibits diagnostic centers not affiliated with hospitals. The challenge is that diagnostic centers not affiliated with hospitals may be less reliable. What constitutional standard of review applies, and what is the likely result?

• A. Rational basis; uphold the law
• B. Strict scrutiny; strike down the law
• C. Intermediate scrutiny; uphold only if substantially related
• D. Rational basis; strike down due to lack of legitimate aim

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is how courts treat government limits on professional services that affect economic activity. When a regulation is facially neutral and does not target a protected class or a fundamental right, the court applies rational basis review. Under rational basis, the law will be upheld if there is any plausible legitimate government interest and a reasonable connection between the means and that interest.

Here, the state can justify prohibiting diagnostic centers that aren’t affiliated with hospitals as a public health and safety measure. Requiring hospital affiliation offers oversight, ensures certain standards, and helps prevent unreliable or unsafe diagnostic practices. These are legitimate aims, and a plausible link exists between the restriction and the goal of protecting patients.

Because there’s no suspect class and no fundamental right at stake in a way that would trigger strict or intermediate scrutiny, those higher standards don’t apply. Therefore, the law would likely be sustained under rational basis review, meaning it should be upheld.