[aristeides]

Then perhaps you would be good enough to give me an example of the kind of thing I asked for. An actual case, if you don't mind?

As I understand it, under rational review as it has previously been applied, Kansas's sentencing disparity would have been routinely upheld. The Supreme Court may choose to play games and pretend that this is still rational review, but that is just because it is being dishonest. Courts are even more dangerous when they're dishonest, because there's even less limit to what they can do.

[AntiGuv]

Then perhaps you would be good enough to give me an example of the kind of thing I asked for. An actual case, if you don't mind?

Here's the most similar rationale I can think of:

City of Cleburne, Texas v Cleburne Living Center

Enjoy.