Judicial Review

Judicial review is the authority of courts to evaluate laws, executive actions, and agency decisions to ensure they comply with the U.S. Constitution. This power acts as a vital check on the legislative and executive branches, preserving the constitutional balance of government. Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, judicial review was firmly established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional limits.

How Judicial Review Works

Courts apply judicial review by examining whether laws or government actions violate constitutional protections. They use different standards of judicial scrutiny based on the rights involved, and may consider challenges to laws both on their face and as applied in specific cases, as explained in facial vs. as-applied challenges. This process ensures that government actions are both reasonable and constitutional.

Judicial Review in Practice

Judicial review is not limited to laws; courts also assess decisions by administrative agencies, a practice detailed in how courts review agency decisions. Recent changes, like the end of Chevron deference, have shifted the balance of power between courts and agencies. Courts also influence lawmaking by deciding when to uphold or overturn precedent and through judicial opinions, as discussed in when judges make law.

Judicial Review and Government Balance

Judicial review reinforces constitutional limits and balances government power by allowing courts to check legislative and executive actions. For example, federal courts have blocked congressional maps, such as in the Texas redistricting case, and have evaluated executive policies like tariffs in court challenges to presidential tariffs. These examples illustrate how judicial review operates as a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring government acts within constitutional bounds.