Judicial review in the United States

Judicial review in the United States. It is the power of the nation's courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the United States Constitution. This authority, while not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution's text, was established by the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. The doctrine serves as a critical check within the system of separated powers, allowing the judiciary to invalidate laws and governmental acts deemed unconstitutional.

Origins and constitutional basis

The intellectual foundations for judicial review are often traced to writings like The Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist No. 78 authored by Alexander Hamilton, which argued the judiciary must have the authority to void legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. The textual basis is derived from the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, which establishes the Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land," and from Article III, which vests the "judicial Power" in the federal courts. The doctrine was crystallized under Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, where the Court asserted this power was a necessary component of a written constitution. Earlier state court decisions, such as those in Virginia and Rhode Island, had also experimented with similar concepts of constitutional review.

Scope and power

Judicial review applies to acts of both the federal Congress and the state legislatures, as well as to actions of the President, state governors, and administrative agencies like the Federal Communications Commission. The power is not unlimited; courts generally adhere to doctrines like standing, ripeness, and the political question doctrine to avoid deciding certain issues. Federal review of state laws is powerfully enabled by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause, as interpreted in cases like Gitlow v. New York. While the Supreme Court has the final say on federal constitutional questions, the structure of the federal district and appellate courts allows for judicial review to be exercised at multiple levels.

Landmark cases

Beyond the foundational Marbury v. Madison, numerous Supreme Court cases have shaped the application of judicial review. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) reinforced federal supremacy and broad congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) infamously used review to strike down the Missouri Compromise, exacerbating sectional tensions. In the twentieth century, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) invalidated state-sanctioned segregation under the Equal Protection Clause. Roe v. Wade (1973) established a constitutional right to abortion, later overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022). Other pivotal cases include United States v. Nixon (1974), which rejected an absolute executive privilege, and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which struck down campaign finance regulations.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics, including figures like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, have long denounced judicial review as an undemocratic "judicial activism" that allows unelected judges to override the will of the people's representatives. The doctrine was a central point of conflict during the Progressive Era, the New Deal (leading to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing plan), and the Warren Court era. Debates often focus on whether the Court should practice judicial restraint or adopt specific interpretive philosophies like Originalism, associated with Justice Antonin Scalia, or a living constitutionalism approach. Controversies also arise from decisions perceived to settle major social policy, such as Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) on same-sex marriage.

Comparison with other systems

The American model of judicial review is distinctive in its breadth and the power of any court to consider constitutionality, though lower court rulings are subject to appeal. This contrasts with the centralized or "European" model employed in countries like Germany, where only a specialized tribunal like the Federal Constitutional Court can perform constitutional review. In the United Kingdom, under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, courts traditionally could not strike down acts of Parliament, though the Human Rights Act 1998 now allows for declarations of incompatibility. Other democracies, such as India and Japan, have adopted systems influenced by the American example but adapted to their own constitutional frameworks and historical contexts.

Category:United States constitutional law United States Category:United States federal courts