The so-called “rational basis” review “required no factual enquiry at all,” Guze wrote. “Treating rational basis review as a virtually irrebuttable presumption of constitutionality could lead to absurd results.” Courts applying “minimal, rational basis scrutiny” to Singleton’s case have sided consistently with government defendants and dismissed his claims. Instead, they must treat them as true,” Guze wrote. “Second, rational basis review is the wrong standard for constitutional claims like the ones Plaintiffs make in the present case.”