The Burger Court and the conflict over the rational basis test: The untold story ofMassachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia

Abstract

When discussing the evolution of the rational basis test, few if any commentators would rank Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia with San Antonio Indep. School District v. Rodriguez and Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz and City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center in terms of doctrinal significance. In Murgia, the Court rejected an equal protection challenge to a Massachusetts statute that required police officers to retire at age 50, but made no effort to refine the parameters of rational basis analysis. Instead, the brief per curiam opinion simply noted that the rational basis test was “a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court's awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one” and that “perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary.”In fact, however, the internal deliberations of the Court in Murgia played a central role in the evolution of modern rational basis jurisprudence. During those deliberations, Justices William Brennan and Lewis Powell made a concerted effort to unite a majority of the justices behind an opinion that would have committed the Court to a version of the rational basis test that was significantly less deferential than the approach that had been followed by the Warren Court. When this effort failed, it became clear that the justices were irrevocably divided, and that no single, definitive formulation could command majority support. Thus, the members of the Court simply agreed to disagree, and the core issue remained unresolved for the remainder of Burger’s tenure.