Judicial Review

Definition

Judicial review is the process by which courts evaluate the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring that laws and policies align with the constitution. This power allows the judiciary to act as a check on the other branches of government, preserving the rule of law and protecting individual rights. The effectiveness and scope of judicial review can vary significantly across different legal systems, influencing how justice is administered and the relationship between the judiciary and other governmental bodies.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Judicial review is a key feature in many democratic systems, allowing courts to invalidate laws that conflict with constitutional principles.
2. In some countries, judicial review is an explicit constitutional provision, while in others, it has been established through legal precedent and practice.
3. The scope of judicial review can differ; some systems allow for broad interpretations while others impose strict limits on judicial intervention.
4. Judicial review serves as a mechanism for protecting minority rights against potential tyranny of the majority in democratic societies.
5. In civil law systems, judicial review may not be as pronounced as in common law systems, where courts frequently engage in this process.

Review Questions

• How does judicial review function as a check on government power in various legal systems?
  • Judicial review acts as a vital mechanism to ensure that legislative and executive actions comply with constitutional mandates. In many legal systems, courts can strike down laws or actions deemed unconstitutional, thus safeguarding individual rights and maintaining balance among governmental branches. This process reinforces accountability and transparency in governance, limiting arbitrary exercises of power.
• Compare and contrast the concept of judicial review in civil law versus common law systems.
  • In common law systems, judicial review is well-established and frequently exercised by courts to assess the constitutionality of laws. Judges often rely on precedents set by previous rulings to inform their decisions. Conversely, in civil law systems, judicial review may be less prominent due to a more codified legal framework where statutes hold significant weight. Courts may have limited authority to question legislative intent, which can impact the breadth of judicial review compared to common law jurisdictions.
• Evaluate the implications of judicial review on democratic governance and individual rights across different systems.
  • Judicial review plays a crucial role in promoting democratic governance by ensuring that laws adhere to constitutional standards, thereby protecting individual rights from potential abuses by the state. In systems where judicial review is robust, it can empower courts to act as guardians of the constitution against majority rule's encroachments. However, if misused or overly politicized, judicial review can also lead to tensions between branches of government and raise concerns about judicial overreach, impacting public trust in the legal system.

Related terms

Constitutionalism: A political doctrine that emphasizes the authority of a constitution in governing a state, establishing limits on government powers and ensuring individual rights.

Separation of Powers:

A governance model where the powers of government are divided among different branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.

Precedent:

A legal principle established in previous court decisions that influences future cases, providing a basis for judicial review.