When challenging a city ordinance that limits business operations in downtown, what standard is applied under the equal protection clause?

When challenging a city ordinance that limits business operations in downtown under the equal protection clause, the rational basis test is the appropriate standard applied. This test is used for laws that do not involve suspect classifications, such as race or national origin, or do not infringe upon fundamental rights.

Under the rational basis test, the government must demonstrate that the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the law, which must show that there is no conceivable legitimate purpose that the ordinance could serve. This standard reflects a lenient review by courts, allowing for a broad interpretation of legislative purposes, and typically upholds the ordinance unless it is clearly arbitrary or irrational.

The other standards mentioned, such as strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny, apply in different contexts. Strict scrutiny is reserved for cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classes, requiring a compelling state interest and the least restrictive means. Intermediate scrutiny is used for certain classifications, such as gender, requiring an important governmental interest and a substantial relation to that interest. However, since the city ordinance in question does not fall under these categories, the rational basis test is the correct application in this scenario.