What test would apply if a person challenges an ordinance that allows only two hot dog stands in a city?

The rationale behind selecting the rational basis test in this scenario relates to the nature of the rights being challenged and the type of regulation involved. The rational basis test is the most lenient standard used by courts when reviewing legislation or government actions that do not affect fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, such as race or religion.

In the case of an ordinance limiting the number of hot dog stands to two, the regulation does not infringe upon constitutional rights in a significant way, making it appropriate for the courts to apply this standard. The government must demonstrate that the ordinance has a legitimate purpose and that the means chosen to achieve that purpose are reasonable. For example, the city might argue that limiting hot dog stands helps maintain public order or improves traffic flow.

Other tests, like the strict scrutiny test, are reserved for cases where fundamental rights or suspect classifications are implicated, while the intermediate scrutiny test is used in gender discrimination cases. The balancing test is more subjective and is not a standard applied in this instance. Therefore, the rational basis test is the appropriate standard to judge the validity of the ordinance limiting hot dog stands.