What Is the Judicial Review and Why Is It Important

Judicial Review

past Stephen Haas

Overview

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authorisation to rule that this law violates the Showtime Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the ability to strike downwardly their own state'due south laws based on the state or federal constitutions.

Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is 1 of the chief characteristics of government in the United States. On an near daily footing, courtroom decisions come down from around the country striking down country and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on ballgame.

Other countries take also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanaian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning sure types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts take ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Wedlock the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the globe trend is in favor of giving courts the ability to review the acts of the other branches of regime.

Still, information technology was non always so. In fact, the idea that the courts accept the power to strike down laws duly passed past the legislature is non much older than is the The states. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the police, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and likewise capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. All the same, equally United kingdom has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a police as existence unconstitutional was non relevant in United kingdom. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the U.k. do not have the power to strike down legislation.

History

The principle of judicial review has its roots in the principle of separation of powers. Separation of powers was introduced by Baron de Montesquieu in the 17th century, simply judicial review did non ascend from information technology in force until a century later.

The principle of judicial review appeared in Federalist Paper #78, authored by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton first disposed of the idea that legislatures should be left to enforce the Constitution upon themselves:

If information technology be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, information technology may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to exist nerveless from whatever particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body betwixt the people and the legislature, in club, among other things, to go on the latter within the limits assigned to their potency

Hamilton further opined that:

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a cardinal police force. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its pregnant, every bit well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative trunk. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute… [W]hither the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to exist governed by the latter rather than the former.

He and then came out and explicitly argued for the power of judicial review:

Whenever a detail statute contravenes the Constitution, it will exist the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the quondam.

The Marbury Decision

In spite of Hamilton's support of the concept, the power of judicial review was not written into the United States Constitution. Article III of the Constitution, in granting power to the judiciary, extends judicial power to various types of cases (such as those arising under federal police force), but makes no comment equally to whether a legislative or executive action could exist struck downward. Instead, the American precedent for judicial review comes from the Supreme Court itself, in the landmark conclusion of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.South. 137 (1803).

The story of Marbury is itself a fascinating study of political maneuvering. When Thomas Jefferson was elected every bit third President in a victory over John Adams, he was the first President who was not a fellow member of the Federalist political party. He wanted to purge Federalists from the judiciary past appointing not-Federalists to the bench at every opportunity. The Federalist judges were to then fade abroad by attrition.

During his last hours in office, Adams appointed several federal judges, including William Marbury. The commission had non yet been delivered when Jefferson was sworn in and Secretary of Land James Madison refused to deliver the commissions to the judicial appointments of Adams. Marbury and others sued in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus: an order to compel Madison to deliver the commissions duly created by Adams while he was President.

While it was fairly apparent to all that the committee was perfectly valid and should have been delivered, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall worried that a direct conflict between the Court and newly elected President Jefferson could take destabilizing consequences for the nevertheless young and experimental government. Yet, Marshall could non very well rule that the commissions ought non to be delivered when it was apparent to nearly that they were proper.

Instead, Marshall and the Courtroom decided the case on procedural grounds. The unabridged reason the instance was in the Supreme Court in the first place was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Section xiii) immune the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, such as the one being sought.

Notwithstanding, Article III, Section 2, Clause ii of the Constitution says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a Country shall exist a Party, the Supreme Court shall accept original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases earlier mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Police and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations every bit the Congress shall make.

In other words, the Supreme Court can only handle cases initially brought in the Supreme Court when those cases affect ambassadors, strange ministers or consuls and when a state is a party. Otherwise, you tin appeal your case to the Supreme Court, but you cannot bring it at that place in the get-go instance. As Marbury was not an ambassador, foreign minister or consul and a state was not a party to the case, the Constitution did non allow the Supreme Court to merits original jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, Marshall and the Courtroom ruled, whether Jefferson and Madison acted properly in denying Marbury's commission cannot be decided by the Courtroom. The instance had to exist dismissed since the Courtroom had no jurisdiction over the case. The Judiciary Act that immune the Court to event a writ in this instance was unconstitutional and therefore void.

While the outcome favored Jefferson (Marbury never did get a federal judge), the case is remembered for the last point. It was the kickoff time that a court of the United States had struck down a statute every bit existence unconstitutional.

Expansion Later Marbury

Since Marbury, the Supreme Court has greatly expanded the power of judicial review. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, fourteen U.Southward. 304 (1816), the Court ruled that it may review state courtroom civil cases, if they arise under federal or constitutional law. A few years later, it determined the same for state courtroom criminal cases. Cohens v. Virginia, nineteen U.S. 264 (1821). In 1958, the Supreme Court extended judicial review to mean that the Supreme Court was empowered to overrule whatever country action, executive, judicial or legislative, if information technology deems such to be unconstitutional. Cooper five. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Today, at that place is no serious opposition to the principle that all courts, not only the Supreme Courtroom (and indeed, not merely federal courts) are empowered to strike down legislation or executive actions that are inconsistent with the federal or applicable land Constitution.

Judicial Review: Impact

It is hard to overstate the effect that Marbury and its progeny accept had on the American legal system. A comprehensive list of of import cases that have struck downward federal or state statutes would easily reach 4 digits. But a recap of some of the virtually of import historical Court decisions should serve to demonstrate the impact of judicial review.

In Brownish five. Lath of Education, 347 U.South. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court struck down state laws establishing divide public schools for blackness and white students on the grounds that they violated the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Subpoena.

In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.South. 335 (1963), the Supreme Court forced states to provide counsel in criminal cases for indigent defendants who were being tried for committee of a felony and could non beget their own counsel.

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.South. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute that prohibited interracial marriage, likewise on equal protection grounds.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that state criminal laws that punished people for incitement could non be practical unless the voice communication in question was intended to and probable to, cause people to engage in imminent lawless action.

In Furman five. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court temporarily halted the capital punishment in the United States by ruling that state death penalty statutes were not practical consistently or fairly enough to pass muster under the Eighth Subpoena.

In Roe five. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that made ballgame illegal. Though Roe and many after cases have walked a tight line in determining exactly how far the correct to choose an ballgame extends, the basic idea that the right to choose an abortion is protected as role of the correct to privacy still stands as the police of the country.

In Buckley 5. Valeo, 424 U.S. ane (1976), the Supreme Courtroom struck downward spending limits on individuals or groups who wished to utilize their own coin to promote a political candidate or bulletin (though it upheld limitations on how much could be contributed directly to a entrada) on First Subpoena grounds.

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Supreme Courtroom struck down certain types of race-based preferences in state college admissions equally violating the equal protection clause.

In Lawrence 5. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in fourteen states, making same-sexual practice sexual activity legal in every U.S. country.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.Due south. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court struck down a federal election law that restricted spending on election advertising past corporations and other associations.

National Federation of Independent Business 5. Sebelius (2012) (the "Obamacare" conclusion) was famous for upholding most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, it as well struck down an element of that constabulary that threatened to withhold Medicaid funding from states that did not cooperate with the law, on the grounds that this was an unconstitutional violation of state sovereignty.

Though some of these decisions remain controversial, none of these decisions would have been possible without judicial review. In every case (and countless others), the Courtroom used its power of judicial review to declare that an act past a federal or land government was null and void considering it contradicted a constitutional provision. It is this power that truly makes the courts a co-equal co-operative of regime with the executive and legislative branches and allows information technology to defend the rights of the people against potential intrusions by those other branches.

©2014- 2022, National Paralegal College

National Juris University, the graduate division of National Paralegal College, offers the following programs:

Master of Scientific discipline in Legal Studies
Primary of Scientific discipline in Compliance Law
Master of Science in Taxation

chatmanmusly1995.blogspot.com

Source: https://nationalparalegal.edu/JudicialReview.aspx

Share this post