Judicial Review

Definition

Judicial review is the power of a court to examine laws, statutes, and governmental actions to determine whether they are consistent with the constitution. This process serves as a critical check on legislative and executive powers, ensuring that no laws violate constitutional principles or the rights of individuals.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Judicial review was established in the United States through the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which set the precedent for courts to invalidate laws that conflict with the constitution.
2. Countries with a system of judicial review often have a written constitution that explicitly outlines this power, which can vary significantly in its application and scope between different countries.
3. Judicial review can be exercised by both supreme courts and lower courts, depending on the legal framework of a given country, allowing for a wider range of judicial scrutiny.
4. The process often involves a careful balancing act where courts must respect legislative intent while protecting constitutional rights, making it a crucial aspect of democratic governance.
5. Judicial review is sometimes controversial; critics argue it can lead to judicial overreach or undermine democratic processes by allowing unelected judges to overturn laws passed by elected representatives.

Review Questions

• How does judicial review serve as a check on legislative and executive powers within a constitutional framework?
  • Judicial review acts as a vital check on both legislative and executive powers by enabling courts to assess whether laws or actions taken by these branches comply with constitutional mandates. This oversight helps prevent abuses of power and protects individual rights by ensuring that no laws can stand if they contradict constitutional principles. Through judicial review, the judiciary can maintain the balance of power among branches of government, reinforcing accountability and adherence to constitutional norms.
• Discuss the significance of judicial review in different constitutional systems around the world and how it reflects each system's unique approach to governance.
  • The significance of judicial review varies across constitutional systems; in some countries, it serves as a strong mechanism for enforcing constitutional limits on power, while in others, it may be more limited. For instance, countries like India have robust judicial review powers that allow their courts to play an active role in protecting rights and upholding democratic values. In contrast, other nations may have less pronounced judicial authority or operate under a parliamentary system where judicial review is less frequently invoked. These differences highlight how various governance models prioritize checks and balances and adapt to their political contexts.
• Evaluate the impact of judicial review on democratic governance and citizen rights, particularly in relation to controversial cases.
  • Judicial review has a profound impact on democratic governance and citizen rights by serving as a guardian against potential overreach by the state. In landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education in the U.S., judicial review played an essential role in dismantling segregation laws, thereby advancing civil rights and promoting equality. However, this power can also be contentious; when courts make decisions that are perceived as overstepping their bounds or undermining popular will, it can spark debates about judicial activism versus restraint. Such dynamics emphasize the ongoing tension between preserving individual rights and respecting democratic processes within societies.

Related terms

Constitutional Supremacy: The principle that the constitution is the highest law of the land, meaning that any law inconsistent with it is void.

Separation of Powers:

A governance model that divides the responsibilities of government into distinct branches to prevent any one branch from exerting too much power.

Judicial Activism:

The practice of judges making rulings based on their personal views or social implications rather than existing law, often expanding the scope of judicial review.