The Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s Lead Hazard Mitigation Act (LHMA) in an important unanimous decision on December 11, 2007, ruling that the lower court erred when it held that the exemptions provided for in the legislation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Rhode Island Constitution. The LMHA imposes several duties on owners of rental dwellings constructed before 1978, which include: (1) attending a lead awareness seminar; (2) evaluating the dwelling unit and premises for lead hazards; (3) correcting lead hazards by meeting the lead hazard mitigation standard; (4) providing tenants with information; and (5) correcting lead hazards within thirty days after notification. The Rhode Island General Assembly, however, amended the act to include an exemption, among others, for pre-1978 rental dwelling units that are comprised of two or three units, one of which is occupied by the property owner.

The plaintiffs, owners of rental properties in various locations throughout the state, alleged that the exemption for owner-occupied two- and three-unit dwellings arbitrarily mandates different treatment for similarly situated property owners without regard to any lead hazard to children in violation of the Rhode Island Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The Superior Court held that the act is unconstitutional because there is "no rational basis for allowing the children who live in these two[-] and three-unit owner-occupied buildings to be at risk while children living in other units enjoy the protections of the Lead Hazard Mitigation Act." The state petitioned the Rhode Island Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, challenging the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the LHMA. The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed the lower court’s ruling that the LMHA is unconstitutional. The Court employed a rational basis test to determine whether the statute is unconstitutional because it does not impinge on a fundamental right, nor does it create a suspect classification. Under this analysis, the Court must uphold a statute as constitutional if it can conceive of any reasonable basis to justify the classification. The Court, after reviewing the affidavits of numerous professionals presented by the state who identified studies indicating that owner-occupied properties were less likely to have incidents of childhood lead poisoning, held that the classification created by the LMHA passes constitutional muster. The Rhode Island General Assembly could rationally conclude, according to the Court, that the legislation is one step toward resolving the problem of lead poisoning of children in the state. It would be perfectly rational for the General Assembly to believe that owners living on the premises are more accessible and are more likely to remedy lead hazards for their own safety and that of their families. The plaintiff property owners therefore failed to carry their heavy burden of negating every conceivable rational basis that might support the exception made in the statute for owner-occupied properties.