How Does Thecourts Power of Judicial Review Affect the Balance of Power in the Federal Government

Judicial Review

by 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 case if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about sure political matters, courts would have the dominance to rule that this constabulary violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts besides accept the power to strike down their own state's laws based on the state or federal constitutions.

Today, nosotros take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is ane of the chief characteristics of authorities in the United States. On an almost daily footing, courtroom decisions come down from around the state hit downwardly country and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex activity marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.

Other countries have too gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a police force granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts take ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal arrangement of the European Matrimony specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Marriage the ability of judicial review. The power of judicial review is too afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, Bharat and other countries. Clearly, the world tendency is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of authorities.

However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the ability to strike down laws duly passed past the legislature is not much older than is the United states of america. In the civil law organisation, judges are seen as those who use the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) mutual constabulary arrangement, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of police, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, equally Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, fifty-fifty to this day, Britain has an attachment to the thought of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike downwards 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, but judicial review did non arise from it in force until a century after.

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

If it be said that the legislative trunk are themselves the ramble judges of their own powers, and that the structure they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may exist answered, that this cannot exist the natural presumption, where information technology is not to be nerveless from any 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 exist an intermediate body betwixt the people and the legislature, in social club, among other things, to go on the latter within the limits assigned to their authorisation

Hamilton farther opined that:

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a cardinal law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well every bit the meaning of any item 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 form, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute… [W]here 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 so came out and explicitly argued for the ability of judicial review:

Whenever a item statute contravenes the Constitution, information technology will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and condone the former.

The Marbury Conclusion

In spite of Hamilton'southward support of the concept, the power of judicial review was not written into the The states Constitution. Article Three of the Constitution, in granting power to the judiciary, extends judicial ability to various types of cases (such as those arising under federal law), just makes no comment equally to whether a legislative or executive action could be struck downwardly. Instead, the American precedent for judicial review comes from the Supreme Courtroom itself, in the landmark decision of Marbury five. Madison, five U.S. 137 (1803).

The story of Marbury is itself a fascinating written report of political maneuvering. When Thomas Jefferson was elected as third President in a victory over John Adams, he was the showtime President who was non a fellow member of the Federalist party. He wanted to purge Federalists from the judiciary by appointing non-Federalists to the demote at every opportunity. The Federalist judges were to and so fade abroad by compunction.

During his concluding 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 State 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 evangelize the commissions duly created by Adams while he was President.

While information technology was fairly credible to all that the commission was perfectly valid and should have been delivered, Supreme Courtroom Master Justice John Marshall worried that a direct conflict between the Courtroom and newly elected President Jefferson could have destabilizing consequences for the all the same young and experimental government. Nevertheless, Marshall could not very well rule that the commissions ought not to be delivered when it was credible to most that they were proper.

Instead, Marshall and the Court decided the case on procedural grounds. The entire reason the case was in the Supreme Court in the offset identify was that the Judiciary Human action of 1789 (Section 13) allowed the Court the ability to issue writs of mandamus, such as the 1 existence sought.

However, Article 3, Section 2, Clause two of the Constitution says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Courtroom shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Police and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations equally the Congress shall brand.

In other words, the Supreme Court tin but handle cases initially brought in the Supreme Courtroom when those cases bear upon ambassadors, foreign ministers or consuls and when a country is a political party. Otherwise, you can entreatment your case to the Supreme Court, but you cannot bring it there in the first instance. Every bit Marbury was not an ambassador, strange government minister or consul and a state was not a party to the instance, the Constitution did not permit the Supreme Court to claim original jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, Marshall and the Court ruled, whether Jefferson and Madison acted properly in denying Marbury'due south committee cannot be decided by the Court. The case had to be dismissed since the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. The Judiciary Human action that allowed the Court to issue a writ in this instance was unconstitutional and therefore void.

While the result favored Jefferson (Marbury never did become a federal guess), the case is remembered for the terminal point. Information technology was the first time that a court of the United States had struck downwards a statute every bit being unconstitutional.

Expansion Afterwards Marbury

Since Marbury, the Supreme Courtroom has greatly expanded the power of judicial review. In Martin five. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), the Court ruled that information technology may review state court civil cases, if they ascend nether federal or constitutional law. A few years later, it determined the same for state courtroom criminal cases. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821). In 1958, the Supreme Court extended judicial review to mean that the Supreme Courtroom was empowered to overrule any state activeness, executive, judicial or legislative, if information technology deems such to be unconstitutional. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.South. ane (1958). Today, there is no serious opposition to the principle that all courts, not just the Supreme Courtroom (and indeed, non just federal courts) are empowered to strike down legislation or executive deportment that are inconsistent with the federal or applicative country Constitution.

Judicial Review: Impact

It is hard to enlarge the effect that Marbury and its progeny accept had on the American legal system. A comprehensive list of important cases that take struck downwardly federal or country statutes would hands reach four digits. But a recap of some of the virtually important historical Court decisions should serve to demonstrate the touch of judicial review.

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court struck down state laws establishing dissever public schools for black and white students on the grounds that they violated the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Gideon 5. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Supreme Courtroom forced states to provide counsel in criminal cases for indigent defendants who were being tried for commission of a felony and could non afford their ain counsel.

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.Due south. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court struck downwardly a Virginia statute that prohibited interracial marriage, besides on equal protection grounds.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.South. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that state criminal laws that punished people for incitement could not be practical unless the speech in question was intended to and probable to, cause people to appoint in imminent lawless action.

In Furman five. Georgia, 408 U.South. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court temporarily halted the death penalty in the United States by ruling that country expiry penalisation statutes were not applied consistently or fairly enough to pass muster under the Eighth Amendment.

In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.South. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that made ballgame illegal. Though Roe and many later cases have walked a tight line in determining exactly how far the right to cull an abortion extends, the bones thought that the right to choose an abortion is protected every bit part of the right to privacy still stands every bit the police of the land.

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court struck down spending limits on individuals or groups who wished to use their ain money to promote a political candidate or message (though it upheld limitations on how much could be contributed straight to a entrada) on First Amendment grounds.

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

In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court struck downwards sodomy laws in xiv states, making same-sex sex legal in every U.S. state.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court struck down a federal ballot police that restricted spending on ballot advertizing by corporations and other associations.

National Federation of Contained Business organization v. Sebelius (2012) (the "Obamacare" decision) was famous for upholding most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Yet, it too struck down an element of that police that threatened to withhold Medicaid funding from states that did non 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 Court used its power of judicial review to declare that an human activity past a federal or country government was null and void because information technology contradicted a constitutional provision. It is this ability that truly makes the courts a co-equal co-operative of government with the executive and legislative branches and allows it to defend the rights of the people confronting potential intrusions past those other branches.

©2014- 2022, National Paralegal College

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

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

warrenallacurs.blogspot.com

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

Share this post