Judicial Review: Can Judges Overrule Laws?

The concept of a judge overruling a law is a complex one and differs from country to country. In some countries, like the US, the term overrule is used to describe a judge's decision to reject an objection and admit evidence, or for an appellate court to overturn a previous case's precedent. Judges can also overturn jury verdicts if there is insufficient evidence or if there was an error during the trial. However, the power to make, alter, and repeal laws typically lies with the legislature or parliament, and courts tend to be reluctant to overrule longstanding authorities. While judges interpret and apply the law, the legislative branch plays a crucial role in creating and amending statutes that shape the legal landscape.

Judges can overturn jury verdicts

In a trial, the judge is the ultimate decision-maker and has the power to overturn a jury verdict if there is insufficient evidence to support that verdict or if the decision granted inadequate compensatory damages. This action is called a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. For example, if a jury awards $10 million in a case that is clearly only worth $10,000, the judge can overturn that verdict on the grounds of excessive jury award.

Judges are generally very reluctant to overturn jury verdicts, as they are statements of the community and are therefore given great respect. In a criminal case, a judge cannot overturn a 'not guilty' verdict as that would violate a defendant's 5th Amendment right. To overturn a guilty verdict, there must be clear evidence that offers reasonable doubt.

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury". Allowing a judge to overrule a jury's verdict may seem to invalidate the integrity of the jury system. However, the jury evaluates whether reasonable doubt exists, which is a subjective standard. Thus, a judge overruling the jury is a difference of opinion, not a dispute of facts.

A JNOV is only allowed if the judge views the evidence as plainly inadequate to support a conviction but the jury returned one anyway. Most jurisdictions that allow a JNOV also allow the prosecutor to appeal it, to strike the judgment and allow the verdict to stand or to permit a retrial. A judge who overrides the jury without a solid reason is likely to have their decision overturned and may even be removed from the bench.

Courts interpret and apply the law

In Canada, courts play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the law, ensuring that disputes are settled and crimes are prosecuted fairly and in accordance with the country's legal and constitutional framework. Canada's judiciary, as one of the branches of the government, resolves disputes according to the law, including disagreements about how legislative and executive powers are exercised.

The court system in Canada is complex, with each province and territory having its own courts, as well as courts with national jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada presides over the entire system. The federal government appoints and pays judges for the superior courts in each province, as well as federal-level judges. While the courts' primary task is administering justice, they also interpret and apply the law. They provide guidance on what the law is and how people should conduct themselves to ensure compliance.

In the United States, the federal courts, as explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #78, "were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and their legislature" to ensure that the representatives act within the authority granted by the Constitution. The US Constitution is the nation's fundamental law, embodying the core values of its people. Courts in the US have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.

The concept of 'overruling' is important to understand in the context of courts interpreting and applying the law. Overruling occurs when a higher court in the hierarchy overturns a legal ruling from a previous case. While courts are generally reluctant to overrule longstanding authorities, they will do so if those authorities no longer accurately reflect contemporary practices or morals. For example, in R v R (1992), the court recognised the possibility of rape within marriage, which was a significant departure from previous interpretations of the law.

In summary, courts play a vital role in interpreting and applying the law, ensuring fairness and consistency in the legal system, and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Judges can overrule objections

Judges play a crucial role in the legal systems of democratic societies, such as Canada and the United States. They are responsible for interpreting and applying the law, resolving disputes, and ensuring that laws are followed. While judges generally adhere to established precedents, they can overrule objections in specific circumstances.

In a trial, the judge acts as the ultimate decision-maker and has the authority to overrule or sustain an objection. Overruling an objection involves rejecting the objection and admitting the evidence in question. On the other hand, sustaining an objection means allowing the objection and excluding the evidence. This power of judges to overrule objections is an essential aspect of the judicial process.

Judges may also overrule previous decisions or precedents set by lower courts. This process, known as overruling, involves a higher court in the hierarchy setting aside a legal ruling established in a previous case. For example, in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled its prior decision in Plessy v. and ruled that segregating children in public schools based solely on race violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

While judges generally respect longstanding precedents, they may overrule them if they no longer accurately reflect contemporary practices or morals. For instance, in R v R (1992), the court recognised the possibility of rape within marriage, effectively overruling previous misconceptions about the true meaning and effect of the law. However, judges are typically reluctant to challenge the law-making rights of Parliament or legislative bodies directly and may instead frame such decisions as clarifying the true meaning of the law.

In summary, while judges generally follow established precedents and are cautious about overruling previous decisions, they possess the authority to overrule objections and prior judicial decisions when necessary to ensure the fair administration of justice.

Judges can reverse previous decisions

Courts are generally reluctant to overrule old decisions, as overruling operates retrospectively and can cause uncertainty in the law. However, they will do so if they see the previous decision as no longer representing an appropriate statement of the law. For example, in R v R (1992), the court recognised the possibility of rape within marriage, which was a significant shift in the law.

It is important to distinguish overruling from 'reversing'. Reversing is a procedure by which a superior court overturns the decision of a lower court in the same case. An example of this is when Lord Justice Mann reversed the presumption of doli incapax, claiming that it had never been specifically considered by earlier courts. The presumption of doli incapax, which presumed that children aged 10-14 did not know the difference between right and wrong, was abolished in England and Wales by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Judges can't alter the law

Judges cannot alter the law. While they can overrule or uphold objections and play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the law, they cannot change it. The power to make, alter, and repeal laws lies with the legislature (Parliament).

In a trial, the judge is the ultimate decision-maker and can overrule a jury's verdict if there is insufficient evidence or if the decision granted inadequate compensatory damages. This action is called a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. For instance, if a jury awards $10 million in a case worth only $10,000, the judge can overrule the verdict on the grounds of excessiveness. Similarly, in some states, a judge can overrule a jury's decision if it is inadequate. However, in a criminal case, a judge cannot overturn a "not guilty" verdict as it would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

The power to overrule a case or a previous decision lies with a court at the same or higher level in the judicial hierarchy. This act of overruling is not the same as altering the law. Overruling a precedent means that it is no longer the controlling rule of law, but it does not change the law itself. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education overruled its prior decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. The Court ruled that segregating children in public schools based solely on race violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This overruling set a new precedent, but it did not change the law; it reinterpreted and applied the existing law, in this case, the Fourteenth Amendment.

While judges cannot alter the law, they play a crucial role in interpreting and applying it through their decisions and overruling previous cases when necessary. This process helps provide clarity and guidance on the law and ensure the law remains relevant and reflective of contemporary practices and morals.

Frequently asked questions