Judicial review is the power of the courts to determine whether laws and government actions comply with the constitution. This important check on government power helps protect individual rights and liberties from abuse by the legislative and executive branches.
What is judicial review?
Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine laws and government actions to determine whether they are constitutional. Under this power, courts can declare laws or actions invalid if they conflict with the constitution. This helps ensure that the government does not overstep its authority and violate citizens’ rights.
Judicial review traces back to the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court established its authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws and actions. Since then, judicial review has become an integral part of the American legal system.
How does judicial review limit government power?
There are several key ways judicial review restricts government power:
- It allows courts to void unconstitutional laws – If the legislature passes a law that violates the constitution, the courts can deem it invalid.
- It permits challenging executive actions – Courts can declare executive orders or policies unconstitutional.
- It enables striking down improper regulations – Courts can find agency regulations inconsistent with laws or the constitution.
- It protects individual rights – Courts can stop laws or policies infringing on constitutional rights like free speech.
By wielding the power of judicial review, the judiciary can directly check abuses of power by the other branches of government.
Examples of judicial review protecting rights
There are many examples in history of judicial review playing a vital role in safeguarding individual liberties:
- Racial segregation – In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, helping dismantle Jim Crow laws.
- Abortion rights – Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion based on protections of privacy.
- LGBTQ rights – Supreme Court decisions like Lawrence v. Texas invalidated laws criminalizing homosexual relationships.
- Free speech – The courts have repeatedly protected free expression by striking down laws suppressing specific viewpoints.
These landmark rulings demonstrate how judicial review has defended rights from oppressive policies passed by legislatures and implemented by the executive branch.
Judicial independence enables meaningful review
For judicial review to effectively check abuses, courts must remain independent and free from political pressure and interference. The judiciary’s independence is protected in several ways:
- Federal judges have lifetime appointments and protected salaries.
- Justices select successors through the nomination process.
- Judicial decision-making relies on reason, not partisanship.
- The judiciary controls its own procedures and operations.
This insulation from improper influence enables courts to carry out searching review without fear of reprisal or retaliation.
Judicial review today and in the future
Judicial review remains critical today in restraining government overreach. Important recent examples include:
- Blocking executive orders like Trump’s travel bans
- Striking down laws that unduly restrict voting rights
- Limiting police powers like warrantless searches
Going forward, judicial review may also be called upon to address issues like:
- Maintaining digital privacy protections
- Preventing religious discrimination from laws
- Challenging infringements on reproductive rights
The courts’ power to enforce constitutional boundaries will continue serving a vital function in our democracy.
Limits on judicial review
While judicial review is intended to combat overreach, there are some limits on its exercise:
- Courts cannot directly negate executive actions, only invalidate them.
- Judges often defer to elected branches on complex policy issues.
- The amendment process can overturn judicial rulings on constitutionality.
- Court rulings only bind parties to a case, not broader laws or policies.
Additionally, factors like stare decisis restrain courts from excessive activism. Overall, prudent exercise of judicial review depends on judges practicing wise restraint.
Conclusion
Judicial review enables independent courts to check abuses of power and protect individual rights. Landmark cases over the decades demonstrate the judiciary stepping in to defend liberties when the democratic process fails to do so. With lifetime tenure insulating them from politics, federal judges can uphold constitutional principles rather than partisan interests. By wielding the power to invalidate unconstitutional laws and executive actions, the judiciary provides a key safeguard against government overreach. Judicial review will continue serving its essential function of enforcing the constitution’s boundaries for the foreseeable future.