Power of Judicial Review

Definition

The power of judicial review is the authority of courts to examine laws, executive actions, and government policies to determine their constitutionality. This power enables the judiciary to uphold the rule of law, interpret the Constitution, and ensure that governmental actions comply with constitutional principles. Judicial review plays a crucial role in shaping ideology and policy making, reinforcing democratic ideals, and establishing the legitimacy of the judicial branch.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The concept of judicial review was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where the Supreme Court asserted its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.
2. Judicial review empowers the courts to act as a check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that they do not exceed their constitutional limits.
3. The power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but has been inferred from its structure and principles.
4. Judicial review can influence public policy by invalidating laws that are deemed unconstitutional, thereby shaping legislative agendas and government actions.
5. Debates over the scope and limits of judicial review often reflect broader ideological divides regarding the role of the judiciary in American democracy.

Review Questions

• How does the power of judicial review serve as a check on legislative and executive actions?
  • The power of judicial review allows courts to assess whether legislative and executive actions align with the Constitution. When a law or action is challenged, courts can evaluate its constitutionality, providing a mechanism for holding branches accountable. This ensures that neither Congress nor the President can operate beyond their constitutional authority, thus maintaining the balance of power within the government.
• In what ways does judicial review contribute to the ideals of democracy in the United States?
  • Judicial review contributes to democracy by safeguarding individual rights and upholding constitutional principles. By allowing courts to invalidate laws that infringe on fundamental rights or violate constitutional provisions, judicial review acts as a protector of minority interests against potential tyranny of the majority. This reinforces democratic values by ensuring that all citizens' rights are respected and protected under the law.
• Evaluate the impact of judicial activism versus judicial restraint on public policy through judicial review.
  • Judicial activism promotes an active role for the courts in interpreting laws and may lead to significant changes in public policy by expanding individual rights or addressing social issues. Conversely, judicial restraint emphasizes limited intervention by courts, advocating for adherence to existing laws and leaving policy-making to elected representatives. The tension between these approaches affects how laws are challenged and interpreted through judicial review, ultimately shaping societal norms and governmental functions.

Related terms

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

Judicial Activism:

The practice where judges make rulings based on personal or political considerations rather than existing law, often associated with expanding individual rights.

Checks and Balances:

A system designed to prevent any one branch of government from gaining too much power, ensuring that legislative, executive, and judicial functions are balanced.