Skip to content
Class Notes

Understanding Judicial Review

The above content belongs to the subject of Social Studies, specifically under the topic of Civics or Government. It focuses on the judicial branch of the U.S. government and the concept of judicial review.

Preview 3 of 8 pages

See the first 3 pages exactly as they appear in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    Judicial Review Name: Thousands have gathered outside the Supreme Court ih protest, both i n support of and against a new law. A group of school shooting victims lobbied t o get a gun control law passed t o stop gun violence in schools. Many support the law and believe it will make our country safer. Others say the new law is unconstitutional because it limits private citizens' ability t o purchase guns The case tes been brou it t o the Supreme Court, and it's up t o them t o deodefitrf why S it t p t o the Court anyway? Let s Talk About Judicial Review Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide whether a law, executive order, or other act of government is constitutional or not. Its the ultimate check on the executive and legislative branches of government. Why? Because it allows the Supreme Court t o evaluate actions from the president and Congress—and, in some cases, reverse them. Think the Presidents new executive order violated freedom of speech or that Congress' new law restricted your right to equal protection? You can take it up in federal court. Whenever a citizen can demonstrate that a law or government action violated their rights, they can bring that complaint to the courts. Their complaint is the first step in the process called judicial review. Its Constitutional, Right? Wrong. Contrary to what some might think, the power of judicial review is not expressly given in the Constitution. In fact, this power wasn't even established until 1803, almost fifteen years after the states ratified the U.S. Constitution. That was when a Federalist judge named William Marbury started the process that would change the way the courts functioned forever. Step back into 1801. President John Adams, a member of the Federalist party and only the second President of the United States ever, was about to step down and hand over the reins to a Democratic- , . . Republican, Thomas Jefferson. IKtffam Marbury The power t o appoht Judces is still a big deal because it's a way for the executive did legislative branches t o influence the federal courts, especially the supreme one! Shce presidents are respoisib.e for nominathc Judges, they often choose canddates whose ruling.- have proven t o alicpi with their o w i political party. Aid because federal lodges serve for life, their rulings impact the country much longer than a president's one o r two terms. Of course this doesn't always work out Sometimes, as with Preside it Obama ih 2016, an Dpposiig party in the Senate stops the Judicial nanhatioh from being approved This is one way Congress can influence the Mdciai branch a s wek Federalist? Democratic-RepubticanfYou might be wondering why all those lab-els even matter. Federalist and Democratic- Republican were the main political parties people identified with at the time, like Democratic and Republican today. 1801 was the first-ever political party change in the history of our country, so things were a bit tense. Before Adams stepped down, h e appointed several federal judges. (Not to be confused with Federalist; "federal" here means that they worked for the national government, not the states). All of the judges were from his political party. Adams hoped that the Federalists would be able to control the courts once the Democratic- Republicans took office. But once Jefferson was in office, he and Secretary of State James Madison decided not to send the letters that finalized the judges' appointments. l BVlCfi I 20191071(3, Ire. Reading - Side A

  2. Page 2
    Read page 2 as text

    Judicial Review Name: Justice Marshall Gets Creative! A KT(CLE fij One of the to-be-judges was William Marbury. He was livid, and he wanted his job. He took his complaint to the Supreme Court and asked them to issue a writ of mandamus, basically, an order from the Court requiring someone to perform a lawful duty, like delivering those appointment letters. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, was a Federalist himself, so it seemed pretty obvious that he'd side with Marbury, and he did, kind of. But he also gave another judgment; one that would change the way the Court functioned forever. Justice Marshall agreed that Madison needed to hand over the letters. He just didn't think the Court could force him t o do it. Specifically, he didn't believe that the Court should have the power to issue writs of mandamus at all because, get this, it wasn't written in the Constitution! Article I I I of t h e Constitution describes the role, authority, and format of the Supreme Court and gives Congress the power to create and structure lower federal courts. I n 1789, Congress wrote a law that did just that. That law was called the Judiciary Act o f 1 7 8 9 , and it created the federal court system as you know it today. The act also gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs, like the one Marbury wanted. This is where Marshall saw a problem. iVhere tvas that power in the Constitution? MarshalI believed that the Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded the Supreme Court's power beyond what was written in the Constitution and the other justices agreed. What Does That Even Mean? Essentially Justice Marshall decided two things: # 1 - Marbury was ri gnt Madison should hand over the letters. #2 - The Court had no constitutional power t o force him to do su Wait, what?! If it sounds confusing, that's because i t was. Marshall s decision came at a time when the Court's power was new and kind of uncertain. It would have been dangerous for it to look as though Justice Marshall was taking Marbury's side since they were both in the same political party. So Marshall shifted the case from a political fight between parties to a question of jurisdiction, which is the official power to make legal decisions or exercise authority over a person, institution, or territory. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ever declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. Marshall ruled that whenever a law (like the Judiciary Act of 1789) was i n conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution must be upheld. By ruling that the Court only had the jurisdiction to use powers that given to it in the Constitution, the Court actually established another power for itself—the power of judicial review! Marbury never got his job, but using the Constitution in this way is one of the first examples of establishing legal precedent the practice of relying o n the basis of an earlier decision to determine the outcome of future decisions. Judicial review may not be found word-for-word in the Constitution, but the Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison solidified it as a precedent that the Court has used ever since. |C I V I C S I 2015IQVICJ. inc. Reading - Side B

  3. Page 3
    Read page 3 as text

    Judicial Review N a m e What if the Court had issued the writ? Wouid Marbury have gotten his job? Maybe— the Court can rule, but it doesn't have much power to enforce its decisions. The Court doesn't have the authority t o mate law or enforce its decisions These powers belong t o other branches I t doesn't happen often, but Supreme Court rulings have been igiored in the past Inltoxestfir v Georgia /7fii?President Andrew Jackson and the state o f Georgia dismissed a decision that said the state couldn't impose its laws in the Cherokee nation. And&pwn if Board o f Education desegregated public schools Faced protest For years before President Dwight Eisenhower mobilized the National Guard and Army troops t o help nine Black students desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas 9 Y Here 5 Where It Gets a Bit More Complex... Today, judicial review is one of the most well-known powers of the Court and gives the judicial branch equal standing with the other branches of the government. The Supreme Court can evaluate congressional laws, actions taken by the president, and state laws and actions for constitutionality if they're brought to the Court for review. And because judicial review takes place after a law has been passed or an action has been taken, the Court often has the final say. Judicial review is usually defined in one of two ways: restraint or activism. Judicial restraint is the belief that judges should limit their power over legislation. Rulings should try to determine how the law applies instead of overturning it. Because of this, restraint typically requires that judges stand with earlier Court precedent, a principle called stare decisis— pronounced stair-ee de-cy-sis— which is Latin for "let the decision stand . ffinneered fh the United States, judidai review now exists in more than thirty countries. State supreme courts also have this power, but the U.S. Supreme Court can review their decisions. Judicial activism, on the other hand, is the willingness of a judge to overturn laws by declaring them unconstitutional. Although it can be difficult to define., judicial activism typically occurs when political and social forces butt heads against parts of the Constitution or specific laws. I n instances of activism, the Court strikes down la ws or actions, usually for the purpose of extending the protections of the Constitution. They may also overturn their own decisions—legal precedents—set in previous cases. JwAoaf Activism ObergefeU v. HodgesVtiiS) In this case, the Supreme Cotrt decided that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to man y for same-sex couples and required that all states recogiize same-sex marriages as equally vatd as cfposite-sex marriages. This case ofjwfcial actMsm overtui ned&iter v. Netsoqa case that said bans on same-sex marriage wei e constitotioiai, and reversed the ruling of the lower court < J Gamto? v. United States (2019) Terrance Gamble argued that under the Sth Amendment the state of Alabama and the federal government coJdn't try him f w the same crime la practice called double jeopardy}. The Court upheld the precedent that state and federal governments can each try a per sen For the same crime, and it is not double jeopardy, because each government is its own sovereign—government ’with the authority t o set its own laws and polish those who don't follow them _________________________ ________________________/ ■ (vics \ anv icki-i. fan Reading — Side C

5 more pages in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Political Science study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.