In a rational basis review for discrimination based on non-protected characteristics, what must a plaintiff demonstrate?

In a rational basis review, which is the lowest level of scrutiny applied in cases of discrimination, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that a law or government action lacks a legitimate interest or that the means employed to achieve that interest are irrational.

For government actions to be upheld under rational basis review, they must reasonably relate to a legitimate government interest. Thus, if a plaintiff can show that the government does not have a legitimate interest in its discriminatory action or that the means employed are unreasonable and not rationally related to achieving that interest, then the action can be deemed unconstitutional.

This standard is often applied to cases involving non-suspect classifications, and the rationale is that the courts typically defer to legislative judgment unless it is clear that the government action is not justifiable in any rational way. In this context, showing that the means are irrational or that the government lacks a legitimate interest effectively meets the plaintiff's burden in a rational basis challenge.

The other options either misconstrue the focus of the rational basis standard or require a higher level of scrutiny than rational basis allows, such as necessity or universal acceptance of discrimination. Thus, the correct answer aligns perfectly with the principles of rational basis review.