Name the three tests that courts use to determine whether a law or action violates the Equal Protection Clause. How do they differ and do you believe that it is necessary to have three separate tests or could one test suffice?

What will be an ideal response?

The three tests are the rational relationship test, the substantial relationship test, and the strict scrutiny test.
• The rational relationship test requires that the objective of the law was itself lawful and that the law bears a rational (cogent and explainable) relationship to that objective. Most laws subjected to this test are found valid.
• The strict scrutiny test requires that the law be shown to be necessary to further a compelling government interest. Most laws subjected to this test are found invalid.
• The substantial relationship test is an intermediary test that requires the government to show that the law bears a substantial (significant) relationship to an important governmental interest. The exact parameters of this test are not precisely defined and are currently being shaped through case law.
Student answers will vary regarding the need for three separate tests.