Judicial Power: Blocking Unconstitutional Laws

In the United States, federal judges have the power to block laws enforced by the state or the center. This power is called judicial review and is the authority to interpret the Constitution. Federal judges have declared several state and federal laws unconstitutional. For example, in 2021, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of an anti-riot law in Florida, saying the legislation likely violated the U.S. Constitution. In another instance, a federal judge blocked former President Trump from enforcing an order against a law firm.

Federal judges can block laws that violate the Constitution

Federal judges have the power to block laws that violate the Constitution. This power is known as judicial review, and it is the federal courts' most important power. When federal judges rule that a law violates the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that schools segregated by race were unconstitutional, reversing the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Federal judges have also blocked the enforcement of laws that are deemed unconstitutional. For instance, in 2021, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of Florida's "anti-riot" law, saying that the legislation likely violated the U.S. Constitution by infringing on free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. The judge ruled that the new definition of the word "riot" was too vague and confusing, and if the law were enforced, it could criminalize the protected speech of law-abiding Floridians.

The federal courts' power of judicial review also extends to executive orders. While the federal courts have jurisdiction over civil suits arising under the Constitution, federal law, and treaties, they have held that executive orders not authorized by Congress are not considered "federal law." As a result, courts have often refused to hear cases challenging executive orders on jurisdictional grounds.

However, it is important to note that the president and Congress have some control over the judiciary. They have the power to appoint and confirm the appointments of judges and justices, and Congress can also amend the Constitution and impeach judges. Additionally, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do to enforce their decision.

Judges can prevent the President from taking action against private entities

In the United States, the federal courts' most important power is that of judicial review, which gives them the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether laws or government actions violate it. This power enables federal judges to shape public policy profoundly and has resulted in over 100 federal laws being declared unconstitutional.

While the President and Congress have some control over the judiciary through their power to appoint and confirm judges, federal judges' independence from the electoral process means they are free from outside pressure and can focus on upholding the rule of law and justice. This independence is critical in preventing the President from taking action against private entities, as judges are not influenced by political considerations and are bound to interpret the law impartially.

For example, in Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (1964), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit asserted that the Constitution imposes limits on governmental power. In this case, the plaintiff alleged a violation of an executive order prohibiting racial discrimination by government contractors. The court noted that the complaint was against a private corporate employer and, therefore, did not arise under the Constitution. However, the court's recognition of the limits on governmental power serves as a check on the President's ability to take action against private entities.

In another instance, five judges of the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Alabama signed a restraining order against Governor Wallace, commanding him to cease his interference with the integration of African American children into all-white public schools. This judicial action prevented the governor from enforcing segregation and protected the rights of private individuals.

Furthermore, federal judges have the authority to block the enforcement of state laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. For example, in 2021, a federal judge blocked Florida's "anti-riot" law, stating that the legislation likely violated the Constitution by infringing on free speech rights. This action by the judiciary prevented the state government from taking action against private citizens engaged in protected protests.

Judges can block laws that violate the rights of students with disabilities

In the United States, federal judges have the power to block laws that violate the rights of students with disabilities. This power stems from the federal courts' authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether laws or government actions align with its spirit.

There are several laws in place that protect the rights of students with disabilities and ensure they receive equal access to education. These include the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. These laws require schools to provide reasonable accommodations and modifications to ensure that students with disabilities have equal opportunities to learn and succeed.

For example, IDEA mandates that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This means that eligible students should be educated alongside their non-disabled peers to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, under Title II of the ADA, public entities, including schools, must allow individuals with disabilities to be accompanied by service animals.

In one instance, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of Florida's 'anti-riot' law, stating that it likely violated the U.S. Constitution. The judge specifically cited the law's vague and confusing definition of the word "riot," which could infringe on the free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. This demonstrates the power of judges to block laws that conflict with constitutional rights, including those that protect students with disabilities.

It is important to note that while judges can interpret and block laws, they do not have the final say in all matters. The president and Congress have some control over the judiciary and can appoint and confirm the appointments of judges. Additionally, Congress can amend the Constitution and pass new laws to override court rulings. However, federal judges play a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that laws uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution.

Judges can block laws that violate free speech rights

In the United States, federal judges have the power to block laws that violate the spirit of the Constitution. This is known as the federal courts' power of judicial review. An example of this is when a federal judge blocked the enforcement of Florida's "anti-riot" law, stating that the legislation likely violated the U.S. Constitution. The judge, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, ruled that the Florida legislature's new definition of the word "riot" was too vague and confusing, and thus failed to satisfy the free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. It also protects the freedom to assemble peacefully and associate with others for social, economic, political, or religious purposes, as well as the right to protest the government. The Supreme Court has played a significant role in strengthening these First Amendment freedoms through its rulings in court cases arising from the civil rights movement. For example, in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the Supreme Court recognized the right of association within the First Amendment and protected membership lists against state investigation. In another case, Garner v. Louisiana (1961), the Supreme Court overturned the disturbing-the-peace convictions of five civil rights protesters who had engaged in sit-ins.

The Supreme Court has also clarified the boundaries of free speech. For instance, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation unless it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. This is known as the "imminent lawless action" standard. The Court has also identified exceptions to the First Amendment, including obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, true threats, and commercial speech.

It is important to note that the power of judicial review is not without its critics. Some argue that federal judges and justices are appointed, not elected, and therefore may not have the same democratic legitimacy as elected officials. On the other hand, others believe that judicial independence from public opinion pressure allows for a fairer interpretation of the law.

Judges can block laws that violate civil rights

The federal courts' most crucial power is that of judicial review, which grants them the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether laws or government actions violate it. In exercising this power, federal judges play a significant role in shaping public policy. For instance, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional, ruling that they contravene the spirit of the Constitution.

One notable example of a judge blocking the enforcement of a law that violated civil rights occurred in 2021 when U.S. District Judge Mark Walker prevented the implementation of Florida's "anti-riot" law. This law, spearheaded by Governor Ron DeSantis, was a response to the previous year's nationwide protests against racial injustice and police brutality, which, at times, turned violent. The new legislation created criminal offenses tied to rioting and imposed harsher penalties for participants. However, Judge Walker, ruling in a lawsuit brought by civil rights groups, found that the law likely violated the U.S. Constitution, specifically citing that the new definition of the word "riot" was too vague and infringed on the free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

In his 90-page ruling, Judge Walker included a three-page history of the civil rights movement in Florida, demonstrating his commitment to protecting civil rights and ensuring that the law did not infringe on the freedom of speech and assembly. This case illustrates the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring that laws enacted by the state do not violate the fundamental rights of its citizens.

While the judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding civil rights, it is essential to recognize that the president and Congress also exert some control over the judiciary. They have the power to appoint and confirm the appointments of judges and justices, and Congress can also impeach judges and alter the organization of the federal court system. Additionally, Congress can pass a slightly different version of a law previously declared unconstitutional, demonstrating the complex interplay between the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Frequently asked questions