Judicial Review: Can Lawmakers Restrict This Power?

Judicial review is a fundamental principle of the US system of government, allowing the Supreme Court to ensure that the legislative and executive branches of government abide by the Constitution. While the US Constitution does not explicitly grant federal courts the power to declare government actions unconstitutional, it has been deemed an implied power derived from Article III and Article VI. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, where the Court asserted its authority to strike down acts of Congress deemed unconstitutional. This power is essential in maintaining a system of checks and balances and protecting civil rights and liberties. However, the Supreme Court must be cautious not to violate the Separation of Powers doctrine, respecting the legislative duty to create laws while interpreting and applying them. While the US Constitution does not explicitly mention judicial review, it is a feature of many countries' constitutions, with over 100 countries specifically incorporating it post-World War II. While there is no explicit law preventing judicial review, the Supreme Court must carefully exercise its power, respecting the separation of powers and the limits of its jurisdiction.

Judicial review and the US Constitution

Judicial review is a fundamental principle of the US system of government, which holds that the actions of the executive and legislative branches are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. The US Constitution establishes the federal judiciary in Article III, Section I, which states:

> "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

This provision permits Congress to decide how to organise the Supreme Court, and it first did so with the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created a Supreme Court with six justices and established the lower federal court system. The Judiciary Act also gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law).

The power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but it has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI. Article VI establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and so any Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution is invalid. The first American decision to recognise the principle of judicial review was Bayard v. Singleton, decided in 1787 by the Supreme Court of North Carolina's predecessor. However, the concept of judicial review was already established at the time of the Founding, and it was acknowledged by the Constitution's framers.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review means it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognises the limits of its own power. It protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution, and it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by preventing the majority from passing laws that harm or take advantage of unpopular minorities.

While judicial review is now an established part of US constitutional law, there are some critics of the doctrine. One of the first critics was Richard Dobbs Spaight, a signer of the Constitution, who argued that the judiciary was imposing its own views of the law without adequate checks from other branches of government. Thomas Jefferson also expressed opposition to the doctrine in 1820, warning that it placed too much power in the hands of the judges, who were not subject to the same controls as other functionaries.

Judicial review and the Supreme Court

Judicial review is a fundamental principle of the US system of government, which holds that the actions of the executive and legislative branches are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. The power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court, therefore, plays an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the Constitution.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). The Act also established the lower federal court system and specified the details of federal court jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Judiciary Act provided for the Supreme Court to hear appeals from state courts when the state court decided that a federal statute was invalid, or when a state statute was upheld despite claims of its repugnance to the Constitution. This provision gave the Supreme Court the power to review state court decisions involving the constitutionality of federal and state statutes.

The first American decision to recognize the principle of judicial review was Bayard v. Singleton, decided in 1787 by the Supreme Court of North Carolina's predecessor. However, the landmark decision that established judicial review of the government was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. This was the first Supreme Court decision to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the US and acts as the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Its power of judicial review ensures that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its power. It also protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court's role in judicial review is to interpret the law and decide which laws violate the Constitution, without usurping the legislative duty to create the law.

While the Supreme Court can prevent the government from reviewing the lawbreaking of private parties, it cannot review the constitutionality of an act where the case before it could be decided on other grounds. This attitude exemplifies judicial restraint.

Judicial review and the legislative branch

Judicial review is the idea that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. It is a fundamental principle of the US system of government and ensures that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its power. The power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the US Constitution.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). The Act also established the lower federal court system and specified the details of federal court jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Judiciary Act provided for the Supreme Court to hear appeals from state courts when the state court decided that a federal statute was invalid, or when the state court upheld a state statute against a claim that the state statute was repugnant to the Constitution. This provision gave the Supreme Court the power to review state court decisions involving the constitutionality of both federal and state statutes.

The first American decision to recognize the principle of judicial review was Bayard v. Singleton, decided in 1787 by the Supreme Court of North Carolina's predecessor. The North Carolina court and its counterparts in other states treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. In 1798, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed a series of resolutions asserting that the states have the power to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional. In response, ten states passed their own resolutions disapproving the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, with six of these states taking the position that the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the federal courts, not in the state legislatures.

While the judiciary has the power to declare laws unconstitutional, it must be careful not to violate the Separation of Powers doctrine when engaging in judicial review. Judges and justices understand that they must not usurp the legislative duty to create the law. This principle is also often at the forefront of many important decisions in administrative law, where judicial officials must carefully strike the right balance between assessing the validity of executive agency actions without deciding what the law is for themselves.

Judicial review and the executive branch

Judicial review is a fundamental principle of the US system of government, which holds that the actions of the executive and legislative branches are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. The power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the US Constitution. The judiciary's role in interpreting the law and deciding which laws violate the Constitution is essential for maintaining a system of checks and balances and preventing the concentration of power in the executive branch.

The US Supreme Court's power of judicial review was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the Supreme Court had the authority to invalidate legislation enacted by Congress if it was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. This power of the Supreme Court to review and invalidate acts of Congress is a crucial check on the legislative branch, ensuring that it does not exceed its constitutional limits.

While the Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal courts the power to declare government actions unconstitutional, the historical record suggests that those who framed and ratified the Constitution were aware of judicial review, and some favoured granting courts this power. The Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted by Congress, provided for the exercise of judicial review by establishing the lower federal courts and specifying the details of federal court jurisdiction.

The power of judicial review is not limited to the review of federal laws but also extends to state laws. The Supreme Court has the authority to hear appeals from state courts when a state court decides that a federal statute is invalid or when a state court upholds a state statute against a claim that it is repugnant to the Constitution. This ensures that the states' actions are also subject to judicial scrutiny and prevents the violation of constitutional rights at the state level.

In conclusion, judicial review is a crucial tool for the executive branch to ensure that the actions of the legislative and administrative arms of the government are consistent with the Constitution. It provides a check on the power of the executive branch, preventing the passage of laws that may infringe on the rights of citizens or concentrate power in a single branch of government. While there have been attempts to limit judicial review, such as the Congressional Review Act, the independence of the judiciary and its power of judicial review remain essential features of the US constitutional system.

Judicial review and the administrative branch

Judicial review is a fundamental principle of the US system of government, where the actions of the executive and legislative branches are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. The judiciary interprets the law and decides which laws violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that each branch of government recognises the limits of its power.

The first American decision to recognise the principle of judicial review was Bayard v. Singleton, decided in 1787 by the Supreme Court of North Carolina's predecessor. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). However, the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. The first Supreme Court decision to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. This established the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when they exceed their authority.

The US Supreme Court seeks to avoid reviewing the constitutionality of an act where other grounds for a decision exist, an attitude exemplifying judicial restraint. In some state courts, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, legislation may be referred for an advisory ruling on its constitutionality before it is enacted or enforced. This is an example of the preliminary conditions that must often be fulfilled before a request for judicial review is filed.

The US employs a mixed system of judicial review, where some administrative decisions are reviewed by district courts, some directly by courts of appeals, and others by specialised tribunals. The judiciary in the US has been described as having unusually strong powers of judicial review compared to other countries. This is because the US system of government is based on the separation of powers, where each branch of government has a check on the powers of the other branches.

Frequently asked questions