Judicial review

Definition

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government and determine their constitutionality. This process ensures that laws and policies align with the principles set forth in the constitution, thereby protecting individual rights and maintaining the rule of law. It plays a critical role in upholding the balance of power within the government and serves as a check on potential abuses of authority.

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 review and nullify unconstitutional laws.
2. This principle allows courts to invalidate laws or executive actions that they find violate the constitution, effectively acting as a safeguard for individual rights.
3. Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution but has been interpreted as an essential function of the judiciary.
4. The application of judicial review can vary based on different standards of review, which determine how closely courts will examine legislative or executive actions.
5. Judicial review can lead to significant social and political changes, as seen in cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which used judicial review to overturn segregation laws.

Review Questions

• How does judicial review function as a check on legislative and executive power?
  • Judicial review serves as a check on legislative and executive power by allowing courts to assess whether their actions comply with constitutional standards. When a law or executive action is challenged, courts have the authority to invalidate it if found unconstitutional, ensuring that all government actions adhere to established legal principles. This process protects individual rights and maintains the integrity of the constitutional framework by preventing potential abuses of power by other branches of government.
• Discuss how standards of review impact the outcomes of cases involving judicial review.
  • Standards of review play a crucial role in determining how courts evaluate the validity of legislative or executive actions during judicial review. For instance, there are varying levels such as 'strict scrutiny,' 'intermediate scrutiny,' and 'rational basis' that influence how thoroughly a court will analyze a case. The standard applied can significantly affect whether a law is upheld or struck down, impacting broader legal interpretations and societal outcomes, especially in cases involving fundamental rights or discrimination.
• Evaluate the significance of judicial review in shaping constitutional law and its implications for democracy.
  • Judicial review holds great significance in shaping constitutional law by allowing courts to interpret the constitution and set legal precedents that affect future legislation and policy. This process is essential for maintaining democratic principles, as it empowers the judiciary to safeguard individual rights against potential overreach by elected officials. By ensuring that laws reflect constitutional values, judicial review reinforces public trust in government institutions and upholds the rule of law, ultimately contributing to a balanced and fair democratic system.

Related terms

Constitutionality: The quality of being in accordance with the constitution, determining whether laws or government actions are permissible under constitutional provisions.

Precedent: A legal decision or form of case law that establishes a principle or rule that can be followed in future similar cases.

Checks and Balances: A system that ensures no one branch of government becomes too powerful by providing each branch with measures to limit the powers of the others.