Ideas To Laws: Judicial Review's Impact

Judicial review is the power of an independent judiciary to determine whether the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are in accordance with the constitution. If a law or action is deemed to be incompatible with a higher authority, it can be invalidated. Judicial review is a key check on the powers of the other two branches of government by the judiciary. The concept was created during the founding of the United States and was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. While the US Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority has been inferred from its structure, provisions, and history. Judicial review is now a cornerstone of constitutional law in the United States, and over 100 countries have specifically incorporated it into their constitutions.

The power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches

Judicial review is the power of an independent judiciary to determine whether the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are in accordance with the constitution. It is a key check on the powers of the other two branches of government.

The concept of judicial review was created during the founding of the United States, specifically included in the constitutional governments of some of the 13 original American states, such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution. Judicial review is now considered a fundamental principle of the U.S. system of government.

The power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Article III states that the federal judiciary has the power to make judgments in all cases pertaining to the Constitution, statutes, and treaties of the United States. Article VI states that the judicial power of the federal courts of law must be used to protect and defend the supreme authority of the Constitution against acts in government that violate or contradict it.

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, with Chief Justice John Marshall asserting that it was the duty of the Judicial Department to interpret and apply the Constitution, and to decide whether a law is in conflict with the Constitution.

Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers, ensuring that each branch of government has a check on the powers of the other branches, thus creating a regulative balance. While it is the duty of the judiciary to interpret the law and decide which laws violate the Constitution, judges and justices must not usurp the legislative duty to create the law. This principle is particularly important 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.

The doctrine of judicial review varies between jurisdictions, and the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries. For example, in the United States, federal and state courts at all levels are able to review and declare the "constitutionality" of legislation. In contrast, some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not permit a review of the validity of primary legislation due to their strong attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy.

The role of the Supreme Court in ensuring other branches of government abide by the Constitution

Judicial review is a fundamental concept in the US system of government. It allows the Supreme Court to ensure that the other branches of government abide by the Constitution. The Supreme Court can review and invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the Constitution. This power is derived from Article III and Article VI of the US Constitution, which state that the federal judiciary has the power to make judgments on all cases pertaining to the Constitution, and that the judicial power must be used to protect and defend the supreme authority of the Constitution.

The role of the Supreme Court in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the Constitution is crucial. The Court can strike down laws, acts, or governmental actions that are found to be incompatible with the Constitution. This includes reviewing and invalidating laws passed by Congress if they are found to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and decide whether statutes are consistent with it. The Court's power of judicial review acts as a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that they do not exceed their authority.

The concept of judicial review was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In this case, the Supreme Court asserted its authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional for the first time. Chief Justice John Marshall's famous statement in this case, "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is," has become a bedrock for judicial review. Since then, the Supreme Court has held hundreds of Acts of Congress and laws unconstitutional in whole or in part.

While the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the Constitution, it must also be careful not to violate the Separation of Powers doctrine. Judges and justices understand that they must not usurp the legislative duty to create laws. This principle guides their decisions and opinions, especially in administrative law, where they must carefully balance assessing the validity of executive agency actions without overstepping their own boundaries.

In summary, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is essential for maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and ensuring that the other branches of government abide by it. The Court's role includes reviewing and invalidating incompatible laws, acts, or governmental actions, and interpreting the Constitution to decide on the constitutionality of statutes. This power acts as a check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring a balance of power among all branches of government.

The process of judicial review in the context of civil law and common law

Judicial review is a process that enables the judiciary to review a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions. In doing so, a court can invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that conflict with a higher authority, such as a constitution. Judicial review is a key component of the separation of powers, acting as a check on the legislative and executive branches of government.

In the context of civil law, judges are typically seen as those who apply the law without the power to create or destroy legal principles. This is in contrast to common law, where judges are viewed as sources of law, capable of creating and rejecting legal principles. Common-law systems, therefore, tend to be more likely to utilise judicial review.

In civil law systems, judicial review is often carried out by administrative courts that specialise in resolving disputes between members of the public and the administration. These courts can be part of the administration itself, as in France, or part of the judiciary, as in Germany.

On the other hand, common-law systems usually conduct judicial review through regular civil courts, although they may delegate this responsibility to specialised panels within these courts. For example, the United States employs a mixed system, with some cases reviewed by district courts, others by courts of appeals, and others by specialised tribunals.

While the procedure and scope of judicial review vary between jurisdictions, the essence of judicial review, as invented and practised in the United States, is similar to constitutional review used in other democratic countries. Judicial review, or constitutional review, is a powerful tool for protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring governments act within the limits set by their respective constitutions.

The principle of ultra vires and how it applies to judicial review

Judicial review is the power of an independent judiciary, or courts of law, to determine whether the acts of other components of the government are in accordance with the constitution. Any action that conflicts with the constitution is declared unconstitutional and is therefore nullified.

The principle of ultra vires is a Latin phrase that translates to 'beyond the powers'. It is used in law to describe an act that requires legal authority but is done without it. The opposite of ultra vires is intra vires, which means 'within the powers'. Acts that are intra vires may be termed "valid", while those that are ultra vires are considered "invalid".

Ultra vires is most relevant to constitutional law, administrative law, and corporate law. It ensures that laws are made legally and are not an abuse of power. It also ensures that government agencies and corporations do not exceed the powers that have been delegated to them.

In the context of judicial review, ultra vires applies when a decision or act by a government agency or official is made without the legal authority to do so. This can occur when the decision-maker does not have the substantive power to make a particular decision, or when the decision is made with procedural defects.

For example, in the United States, judicial review allows courts to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or the United States Constitution. If a court finds that a law is ultra vires, it can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify it.

In summary, the principle of ultra vires plays a crucial role in judicial review by ensuring that government decisions and actions are made within the scope of their delegated powers and do not violate the constitution or applicable laws.

The history of judicial review and its establishment in Marbury v. Madison

The history of judicial review in the United States is intimately tied to the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, which was decided in 1803. The case established the principle of judicial review, a critical component of the system of checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch of the federal government from becoming too powerful.

The origins of the case lie in the final days of President John Adams's administration. On March 2, 1801, Adams appointed William Marbury as one of forty-two justices of the peace, with the Senate confirming the nominations on the following day—Adams's last full day in office. However, the acting Secretary of State, John Marshall, failed to deliver four of the commissions, including Marbury's. When Thomas Jefferson assumed the presidency on March 4, he ordered that the remaining four commissions be withheld.

Marbury then petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, compelling the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver his commission. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, agreed with Marbury that they had the authority to issue such a writ. However, the Court ultimately declined to issue the writ, concluding that the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and therefore void. In doing so, the Court asserted the power of judicial review, establishing that the federal courts could declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison is considered one of the foundations of US constitutional law. In his opinion, Marshall recognised certain fundamental principles, including the idea that the people had come together to establish a government with defined powers and limits expressed in a written constitution. He asserted that the Constitution was a superior, paramount law, and that a legislative act contrary to the Constitution was not law. Marshall further emphasised the duty of the judicial department to interpret and apply the law, including determining the constitutionality of legislative acts.

The decision in Marbury v. Madison strengthened the federal judiciary by establishing the power of judicial review, enabling the courts to check the actions of Congress and the President and ensuring the judiciary's coequal status as a branch of government. While the case of Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, it would not be until the Dred Scott decision of 1857 that another law was struck down as unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate federal and state laws contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged since Marbury v. Madison.

Frequently asked questions