Under rational basis review, which law would most likely be sustained?

• A. Men being punished for statutory rape even if women are not punished
• B. Laws requiring somebody to be 21 to legally purchase alcohol
• C. Laws protecting the voting rights of blacks
• D. State laws setting different ages at which men and women legally become adults

Answer: (B)

Under rational basis review, the government only needs to show that a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest; courts give wide leeway and rarely strike down such laws. The law that requires someone to be 21 to legally purchase alcohol fits this pattern. It targets age, not a protected class or a fundamental right, and the government has a clear, legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of minors. A plausible link exists: setting a higher purchase age can reduce underage drinking and related harms, and there are reasonable ways to justify it, so the law would likely be sustained.

The other options involve classifications that receive higher scrutiny or address protective actions for a race group, which would not be judged under rational basis in the same way. Limiting statute based on gender or race and seeking to protect voting rights for a particular race typically requires more than a mere plausible connection, making them less likely to be sustained under this standard.