Judicial review

Definition

Judicial review is the power of courts to assess whether a law, policy, or executive action is in accordance with the Constitution. This process ensures that no law or government action violates constitutional principles and serves as a vital mechanism for maintaining the balance of power within government. It connects deeply to systems of checks and balances, the roles of different courts, and the selection process of judges, as well as how state laws interact with federal authority.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Judicial review was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which set the precedent for the courts to invalidate laws contrary to the Constitution.
2. In Texas, the judicial review process allows state courts to assess both state laws and local ordinances for their constitutionality.
3. The Texas Supreme Court has the authority to interpret state laws and can use judicial review to ensure that state actions comply with both the Texas Constitution and federal law.
4. Judicial selection processes can impact how judicial review is applied, as judges appointed through different methods may interpret laws based on their judicial philosophies.
5. The concept of judicial review is crucial in maintaining checks and balances among the branches of government, preventing any one branch from overstepping its authority.

Review Questions

• How does judicial review serve as a check on legislative power within a government?
  • Judicial review allows courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures, acting as a critical check on legislative power. By invalidating laws that conflict with constitutional provisions, courts ensure that elected officials adhere to the supreme law of the land. This dynamic helps maintain a balance between legislative authority and constitutional mandates, preventing potential abuses of power.
• Discuss how the process of judicial selection can influence the application of judicial review in state courts.
  • The method by which judges are selected—whether through election, appointment, or merit-based systems—can significantly affect their approach to judicial review. For instance, judges who are elected may feel pressure to align their rulings with public opinion, while those appointed might prioritize adherence to constitutional principles. These differing perspectives can lead to varied applications of judicial review, shaping how effectively courts can challenge unconstitutional laws.
• Evaluate the implications of judicial review on state and federal relations, especially in terms of preemption.
  • Judicial review plays a pivotal role in defining the relationship between state and federal governments, particularly regarding preemption. When state laws conflict with federal statutes or constitutional provisions, judicial review empowers courts to determine which law prevails. This not only clarifies legal boundaries but also reflects broader themes of federalism, demonstrating how judicial interpretations can shape policies that resonate across various levels of government.

Related terms

Constitutional interpretation: The process by which courts analyze and apply constitutional provisions to specific cases or issues.

Separation of powers: The division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.

Preemption:

The legal principle that allows federal law to take precedence over state laws when there is a conflict between the two.