Judicial Review

Definition

Judicial review is the power of courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, and other government actions. This process ensures that no law or executive action can supersede the Constitution, providing a critical check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches, while maintaining the balance of power within government.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Judicial review was established in the United States by the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where the Supreme Court asserted its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.
2. The ability of the Supreme Court to engage in judicial review has significant implications for presidential actions and executive orders, as it can declare them unconstitutional.
3. Judicial review acts as a check on presidential authority by allowing courts to review and potentially overturn executive actions that exceed legal boundaries.
4. While judicial review is crucial for maintaining constitutional supremacy, it can also lead to tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch, especially when decisions challenge presidential policies.
5. Presidents often must navigate court rulings resulting from judicial review, adjusting their actions to ensure compliance with constitutional standards established by the judiciary.

Review Questions

• How does judicial review serve as a check on presidential authority?
  • Judicial review allows courts to assess the constitutionality of executive actions, providing a mechanism to limit presidential power. If an executive order or action is found to violate constitutional principles, courts can nullify it. This process ensures that no president can act beyond their legal authority, thereby protecting individual rights and maintaining the balance of power among branches of government.
• In what ways do executive orders intersect with judicial review processes?
  • Executive orders can be subjected to judicial review if they are challenged in court. Judges will analyze these orders against constitutional standards. If an executive order is deemed unconstitutional, it can be invalidated through judicial review. This interaction emphasizes how executive actions are not immune from scrutiny and highlights the dynamic relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary.
• Evaluate the implications of judicial review on presidential compliance with court decisions and its effects on governance.
  • Judicial review has profound implications for presidential compliance as it mandates adherence to court rulings regarding constitutional interpretation. When presidents defy these rulings, it can lead to conflicts with the judiciary and erode public trust in governmental institutions. The need for compliance reinforces the idea that no branch of government is above the law, thus promoting accountability and ensuring that governance operates within constitutional boundaries.

Related terms

Constitutionalism: The principle that government authority is derived from and limited by a body of fundamental law, often embodied in a written constitution.

Precedent: A legal case that establishes a principle or rule that courts may follow in future cases, shaping how judicial review is applied.

Separation of Powers:

A model for governance where the state's powers are divided among distinct branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.