## Facts

- Washington set the minimum age for possessing and consuming alcoholic beverages at 21.
- Charles Houser III, an 18–20-year-old, brought a class action on behalf of 18–20-year-olds seeking a declaratory judgment that the law violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Washington Constitution.
- Houser argued that Washington treated citizens as adults at 18 for most purposes and lacked a rational basis to single out alcohol possession/consumption.
- Houser submitted an expert affidavit disputing common justifications for keeping the drinking age at 21.
- The State asked the court to take judicial notice of technical studies supporting the 21-year limit and cited a federal decision upholding a similar law.
- The trial court took judicial notice of the State’s studies and granted summary judgment for the State despite Houser’s affidavit.

## Issues

1. Whether a statutory minimum drinking age of 21 violates equal protection by irrationally discriminating against persons aged 18–20.
2. Whether the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of technical studies offered to justify the age classification.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper because competing expert materials allegedly created a genuine issue of material fact.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State.
- The court held the 21-year drinking age does not violate equal protection because age is not a suspect classification and alcohol consumption is not a fundamental right, making rational basis review applicable.
- The court concluded the statute is rationally related to legitimate state interests, including public safety and health, particularly concerns about alcohol-related harms such as traffic accidents.
- The court held the trial court could take judicial notice of technical studies as legislative-type facts relevant to assessing the rationality of the classification.
- The court held no genuine issue of material fact existed for trial because, under rational basis review, conflicting expert opinions about policy efficacy do not defeat a statute supported by a reasonable factual basis.

## Legal Principles

- Age-based classifications generally receive rational basis review because age is not a suspect class.
- There is no fundamental constitutional right to purchase, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages; regulations of alcohol therefore do not trigger heightened scrutiny.
- Under rational basis review, a classification is valid if any rational relationship exists between the classification and a legitimate governmental purpose; the legislature need not select the best or most precise cutoff.
- Courts may consider and take judicial notice of legislative facts, including social science and technical studies, when evaluating the rationality of a statutory classification.
- In rational basis constitutional challenges, summary judgment may be appropriate even with competing expert submissions, because the court’s role is to test rationality rather than to resolve a policy dispute through factfinding.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Washington’s 21-year drinking age under rational basis review, approved the use of judicially noticed legislative-type studies to evaluate the statute’s rationality, and affirmed summary judgment because the challenge raised no triable issue material to the governing constitutional standard.


Houser v. State, 540 P.2d 412 (Wash. 1975)