Judicial review is the power of courts to decide whether laws and government actions violate the constitution and to strike them down if they do. In AP Comparative Government (Topic 2.9), it's a core measure of how much authority a judiciary has to check the executive and legislative branches.
Judicial review is the authority of a court to examine laws, executive decrees, and other government actions and declare them void if they conflict with the constitution. A court with real judicial review power can tell a president or a legislature "no, you can't do that," and make it stick.
In AP Comp Gov, judicial review isn't just a definition to memorize. It's a variable you compare across the six course countries. The CED (PAU-3.H.1) says a judiciary's independence depends partly on "the amount of authority the courts have to overrule executive and legislative actions." That authority is judicial review. Some courts have it on paper and use it (Nigeria's courts have overturned presidential actions). Some have it on paper but rarely use it against the regime (Russia's Constitutional Court). And in the UK, parliamentary sovereignty means courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament at all, though the UK Supreme Court can rule executive actions unlawful, as it did with Boris Johnson's 2019 prorogation of Parliament.
Judicial review lives in Unit 2: Political Institutions, Topic 2.9 (Independent Judiciaries) and supports learning objective 2.9.A, which asks you to explain why independent judiciaries matter relative to other institutions. Per PAU-3.H.2, independent courts strengthen democracy by maintaining checks and balances, protecting rights and liberties, and establishing the rule of law. Judicial review is the main tool that makes all of that real. A court without the power to overrule the other branches is mostly decorative.
This term is also one of the best comparison hooks in the whole course. Whether a country's courts can actually exercise judicial review tells you a lot about whether it's a liberal democracy (UK), an illiberal/hybrid regime (Russia, where the court formally exists but bends to the Kremlin), or somewhere in between (Nigeria, Mexico). When an exam question asks about limits on judicial power, judicial review is usually the concept doing the work.
Keep studying AP Comparative Government Unit 2
Judicial Independence (Unit 2)
Judicial review is the power; judicial independence is the freedom to use it. A court can have judicial review written into the constitution but never rule against the regime because judges fear removal or owe their jobs to the executive. You need both for courts to be a real check.
Parliamentary Sovereignty (Unit 2)
This is the UK's twist. Because Parliament is supreme, no UK court can strike down an Act of Parliament. That makes the UK the go-to example of a democracy with limited judicial review, which is exactly the kind of cross-country contrast comparative FRQs love.
Checks and Balances (Unit 2)
Judicial review is the judiciary's main weapon in the checks-and-balances system. When Nigeria's courts overturn a presidential decree or the UK Supreme Court voids a prorogation, that's the judicial branch checking executive power in action.
Rule of Law (Units 1-2)
Judicial review enforces the idea that the government itself is bound by law. If a leader's decree can be struck down in court, you have rule of law. If the courts always rubber-stamp the regime (think Russia's Constitutional Court under Putin), you have rule by law instead.
Multiple-choice questions usually test judicial review through scenarios. You'll get a stem like "Nigeria's Constitutional Court overturned a presidential decree despite political pressure" and have to identify what aspect of judicial independence that demonstrates, or you'll be asked which structural change (like letting the executive fire judges) would weaken a court's ability to exercise review. The UK prorogation ruling against Boris Johnson in 2019 is a recurring example of courts checking executives in democracies.
On the free-response side, the 2025 SAQ asked you to compare the limits on judicial power in two course countries, and the 2023 comparative analysis question dealt with restrictions on executive power, where courts and judicial review are a natural piece of evidence. The skill being tested is comparison, so don't just define judicial review. Be ready to say which countries' courts have it, which actually use it, and what blocks it (parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, regime pressure in Russia, the Guardian Council's role in Iran).
Judicial review is a specific power, the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws and actions. Judicial independence is a broader condition, meaning judges can decide cases free from pressure by the executive, legislature, or ruling party. The two are related but separable. Russia's Constitutional Court has formal judicial review power but lacks independence, so it rarely rules against the Kremlin. Meanwhile the UK Supreme Court is highly independent but cannot strike down Acts of Parliament because of parliamentary sovereignty. On the exam, ask yourself which one the question is really about: the legal power (review) or the political freedom to use it (independence).
Judicial review is the power of courts to declare laws and government actions unconstitutional and void.
Per the CED (PAU-3.H.1), the authority to overrule executive and legislative actions is one of the main factors determining how independent a judiciary is.
Having judicial review on paper is not the same as using it; Russia's Constitutional Court formally has the power but rarely challenges the regime.
The UK is the classic exception, since parliamentary sovereignty means no court can strike down an Act of Parliament, though the UK Supreme Court can rule executive actions unlawful (the 2019 prorogation ruling).
Independent courts using judicial review strengthen democracy by maintaining checks and balances, protecting rights, and establishing the rule of law (PAU-3.H.2).
Exam questions almost always test judicial review comparatively, so know which course countries' courts can and actually do check the other branches.
Judicial review is the power of courts to rule on whether laws and government actions are constitutional and to strike them down if they aren't. In AP Comp Gov it's tested in Topic 2.9 as a key measure of judicial independence across the six course countries.
Only partially. Because of parliamentary sovereignty, UK courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament, but the UK Supreme Court can rule executive actions unlawful, like its 2019 decision voiding Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament. That mix makes the UK a favorite exam example.
Judicial review is the legal power to overturn unconstitutional laws and actions. Judicial independence is the freedom to exercise that power without pressure from the executive or legislature. Russia shows the gap, since its Constitutional Court has review power on paper but lacks the independence to use it against the regime.
Formally, yes. The Russian Constitutional Court can review laws and presidential actions, but it lacks real independence and rarely rules against the Kremlin. Exam questions often use Russia to test whether you can tell formal power apart from actual independence.
Mostly through comparison. The 2025 short-answer question asked you to compare limits on judicial power in two course countries, and multiple-choice questions use scenarios like Nigerian courts overturning a presidential decree or structural changes that would weaken a court's independence.