🦢Constitutional Law I Unit 2 – Judicial Review: Supreme Court's Role

What's Judicial Review Anyway?

• Judicial review refers to the power of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to review and potentially invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution
• Allows the judicial branch to serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches ensures their actions align with the Constitution
• Gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and apply it to specific cases and controversies
• Enables the Court to protect individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution from infringement by the other branches of government
• Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but has become an established principle of American constitutional law
  • Derived from the Court's interpretation of its own powers and role in the system of checks and balances
• Critics argue that judicial review gives unelected judges too much power to override the will of democratically elected officials
  • Supporters counter that it is necessary to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and prevent abuses of power

Origins: Marbury v. Madison

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States
• The case arose from a political dispute between outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson
  • Adams had appointed several "midnight judges" to new judicial positions before leaving office, including William Marbury as a justice of the peace in Washington, D.C.
  • Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury's commission, prompting Marbury to sue for its delivery
• Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Court could not order Madison to deliver it because the law Marbury relied on was unconstitutional
  • The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (orders compelling government officials to act), but the Constitution limited the Court's original jurisdiction to specific cases
• By declaring a law passed by Congress unconstitutional, the Court asserted its power of judicial review and established itself as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution
• The decision was controversial at the time, as it appeared to give the Court the power to override the actions of the elected branches of government
• However, judicial review has since become an accepted and essential feature of the American constitutional system, allowing the Court to serve as a check on the other branches and protect individual rights

Key Powers of the Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and determine whether laws and executive actions are constitutional
  • This power of judicial review allows the Court to strike down laws and actions that violate the Constitution
• The Court has the authority to resolve disputes between states and between the federal government and the states
• It can hear appeals from lower federal courts and state courts on federal constitutional issues
• The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and cases in which a state is a party
• The Court's decisions are binding on all lower courts and establish precedents that guide future cases
  • Lower courts must follow the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution and federal laws
• The Supreme Court has the power to grant writs of certiorari, allowing it to choose which cases it will hear on appeal
  • This discretionary power enables the Court to focus on cases of national importance or those that involve significant constitutional questions

Limits on Judicial Review

• The Supreme Court can only hear cases that involve actual controversies and cannot issue advisory opinions on hypothetical or abstract issues
• The Court is limited by the "case or controversy" requirement in Article III of the Constitution
  • Plaintiffs must have standing to sue, demonstrating a concrete injury caused by the challenged action and redressable by a court decision
• The Court generally adheres to the principle of stare decisis, meaning it follows its own precedents unless there is a compelling reason to overrule them
  • This promotes stability and predictability in the law but can also make it difficult for the Court to correct past errors or adapt to changing circumstances
• The Supreme Court's decisions can be overridden by constitutional amendments or by Congress modifying laws the Court has interpreted
• The Court relies on the executive branch to enforce its decisions and lacks the power to enforce them directly
  • Presidents have sometimes defied or ignored Supreme Court rulings, such as Andrew Jackson's famous response to the Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832): "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
• The Court's power is also limited by the need to maintain its legitimacy and public confidence
  • If the Court is perceived as too political or activist, it risks losing the respect and compliance of the other branches and the public

Famous Cases That Shaped Judicial Review

• Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Affirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law and the broad powers of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): Infamously ruled that African Americans were not citizens and that Congress could not ban slavery in the territories, a decision later overturned by the 14th Amendment
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): Upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, a decision later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
• Korematsu v. United States (1944): Upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, a decision now widely criticized as unjust and unconstitutional
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Overturned Plessy and declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, paving the way for the civil rights movement
• Roe v. Wade (1973): Recognized a constitutional right to abortion based on the right to privacy, a decision that remains controversial and has been modified by subsequent cases
• United States v. Nixon (1974): Ordered President Nixon to turn over tapes related to the Watergate scandal, affirming that the president is not above the law

How It Works in Practice

• Cases reach the Supreme Court through appeals from lower federal courts or state courts, or in rare cases, through the Court's original jurisdiction
• The Court receives thousands of petitions for certiorari each year but only grants review in about 100-150 cases
  • The Court typically selects cases that involve significant constitutional issues, conflicting decisions among lower courts, or important national interests
• The parties submit written briefs arguing their positions, and the Court holds oral arguments where the justices question the attorneys
• The justices then deliberate in private and vote on the outcome of the case
  • The most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion, which explains the Court's reasoning and decision
  • Justices who disagree with the majority may write dissenting opinions, and justices who agree with the outcome but not the reasoning may write concurring opinions
• The Court's decision is binding on the parties involved and sets a precedent for future cases raising similar issues
• Lower courts, as well as the other branches of government, are expected to follow and apply the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution
• The Court's decisions can have far-reaching impacts on American society, politics, and law, shaping policies and rights for generations

Debates and Controversies

• Critics argue that judicial review gives unelected judges too much power to override the will of democratically elected officials
  • They contend that the Court should defer more to the political branches and exercise judicial restraint
• Supporters counter that judicial review is necessary to protect individual rights and check abuses of power by the other branches
  • They argue that the Court plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that the majority cannot trample on the rights of minorities
• There are ongoing debates about the proper methods of constitutional interpretation, such as originalism (focusing on the original meaning of the text) versus living constitutionalism (allowing for evolving interpretations to adapt to changing times)
• The Court's decisions on controversial issues like abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, and same-sex marriage have often been criticized as politically motivated or overstepping the Court's authority
• The appointment process for Supreme Court justices has become increasingly politicized, with partisan battles over nominations and concerns about the ideological balance of the Court
• Some critics propose reforms to the Court, such as term limits for justices, changes to the appointment process, or even altering the Court's jurisdiction or size
• There are also debates about the Court's role in shaping public opinion and social change, with some arguing that it should lead on important issues and others contending that it should follow the democratic process

Why It Matters Today

• Judicial review remains a crucial check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that their actions comply with the Constitution
• The Supreme Court continues to play a significant role in shaping American law and society through its decisions on major constitutional issues
  • Recent examples include decisions on same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), healthcare reform (NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012), and presidential elections (Bush v. Gore, 2000)
• The Court's interpretations of individual rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and due process, directly impact the lives of all Americans
• Its rulings on the powers of the federal government and the states continue to define the balance of power in the American constitutional system
• The Court's decisions can have long-lasting effects on public policies, from civil rights and environmental regulations to immigration and national security
• The appointment of Supreme Court justices has become a central issue in presidential elections and Senate confirmation battles, reflecting the Court's importance in American politics
• As new challenges and controversies arise, the Court's power of judicial review will continue to shape the nation's legal, political, and social landscape for generations to come
• Understanding the role and powers of the Supreme Court, as well as the debates surrounding judicial review, is essential for informed citizenship and participation in American democracy