rational basis test
“We reject the proposition that strikers as a class are entitled to special treatment under the Equal Protection Clause. City of Charlotte v. Firefighters, 426 U.S. 283, 286, 96 S.Ct. 2036, 2038-39, 48 L.Ed.2d 636 (1976); Hodory, 431 U.S., at 489, 97 S.Ct., at 2390. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 93 S.Ct. 2821, 37 L.Ed.2d 782 (1973), does not counsel otherwise. There we upheld an equal protection challenge to a provision of the Food Stamp Act and concluded that ‘a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group canno constitute a legitimate governmental interest.’ Id., at 534, 93 S.Ct., at 2826 (emphasis in original). This statement is merely an application of the usual rational-basis test: if a statute is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental objective, it cannot be saved from constitutional challenge by a defense that relates it to an illegitimate governmental interest. Accordingly, in Moreno itself we examined the challenged provision under the rational-basis standard of review. Id., at 533, 93 S.Ct., at 2825.” J. White, Lyng v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 485 U.S. 360, 370 fn. 8 (1988).