A local school district had a policy that it would not hire bus drivers who had been convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Sven claimed that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause by unfairly excluding everyone who had been found guilty of DUI. Which standard will the court use to review the bus company's practice

Minimum or rational basis scrutiny.

Explanation: Case reviews in which courts only require a logical explanation or basis from an accused or government for implementing certain laws or regulation within their jurisdiction.

In the context above, the bus company which has been accused by Sven will only be required to give a rational or logical explanation that it's decision not to hire anyone who has been convicted of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol is in the best interest of the state. Alcohol causes addiction and as such employing drivers who might have been addicted will probably mean subjecting school children to danger. It doesn't require strong evidence or documented fact. Just rational deduction in most cases.

1. artillery

2. jose san martin

3.their economies remained dependent on outside powers.

4. drafted new economies

5. democracies have replaced dictatorships