Judicial Review vs. Legislative Action: How American Government Really Works

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The U.S. government operates with three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The Constitution assigns specific powers to Congress, the President, and Federal courts, creating a dynamic system where laws are both created and evaluated.

This article examines two critical functions: Congress’s power to create laws and the Judiciary’s authority to evaluate their constitutionality. Understanding these interconnected processes reveals how American democracy balances progress with stability while protecting fundamental rights.

The Legislative Branch: How Laws Are Made

The U.S. Constitution gives “all legislative Powers herein granted” to Congress. This makes Congress—composed of the Senate and House of Representatives—the primary body responsible for creating federal laws that influence the daily lives of all Americans.

Congress has a bicameral (two-chamber) structure resulting from the “Great Compromise” during the Constitutional Convention. This balanced power between populous and less populous states by basing House representation on population (435 districts) and giving all states equal representation in the Senate (two per state).

For a bill to become law, both chambers must pass identical versions of it—a requirement that forces negotiation and compromise between bodies with different priorities.

Why Two Chambers Matter

The division of Congress serves as a built-in check on lawmaking. The House, with members elected every two years, tends to be more responsive to public sentiment.

The Senate, with six-year staggered terms, was designed for deeper deliberation and to moderate potentially impulsive House decisions.

Senate rules favor thorough consideration over quick action and give individual Senators significant procedural leverage. The House, by contrast, allows a numerical majority to process legislation more efficiently.

This design aims to create a legislative process that’s thoughtful and stable rather than prone to hasty decisions.

The Journey of a Bill

Only about 3-6% of bills introduced in Congress become law, showing how rigorous the process is. The complex journey of a bill isn’t inefficient by accident—it’s a deliberate design to ensure laws are thoroughly vetted and command broad support.

Bill Introduction

While anyone can suggest ideas for laws, only Members of Congress can formally introduce bills:

• House bills are labeled “H.R.” followed by a number
• Senate bills are labeled “S.” followed by a number

The Constitution requires all revenue-raising bills to start in the House, underscoring that chamber’s closeness to the people.

In the House, bills are placed in a wooden box called the “hopper” on the House floor. In the Senate, bills are submitted to clerks on the Senate floor.

Members often circulate “Dear Colleague” letters to gather co-sponsors and demonstrate broad support. Some significant bills, like the annual federal budget, are traditionally introduced at the President’s request.

Committee Work

After introduction, bills are sent to committees with jurisdiction over their subject. The Speaker of the House or the presiding officer in the Senate makes these referrals with advice from the nonpartisan parliamentarian.

Committees are typically panels with members from both parties, chaired by a member of the majority party. They work closely with the committee’s ranking member (the most senior minority party member). The ratio of majority to minority members generally reflects the overall partisan ratio in the chamber.

The committee process includes:

• Hearings: Experts, advocates, opponents, and officials testify and answer questions. Committees have subpoena power to compel individuals to appear or produce documents.
• Markup: Committee members debate and amend the bill’s specific provisions, refining its text.
• Reporting: If approved, the bill is “reported” to the full chamber with an explanatory committee report. If rejected or “tabled,” the bill’s progress effectively stops.

Many bills die in committee. This filtering stage allows for in-depth scrutiny by members with specialized knowledge and provides a forum for public and expert input.

Floor Action

If a bill makes it out of committee, it goes to the full chamber for consideration.

House debate has strict rules set by the Rules Committee, which determines what amendments can be offered and sets time limits for discussion. This gives the majority party leadership significant control over the legislative agenda.

Senate debate is traditionally unlimited, with Senators able to speak on any topic. This can lead to filibusters, where members delay votes by continuing to speak or using procedural maneuvers. Ending a filibuster requires 60 Senators to vote for “cloture.”

In both chambers, members debate the bill, offer amendments (subject to rules), and vote on passage. A simple majority is typically needed.

The procedural differences between chambers are highly significant, with Senate rules often requiring broader consensus to advance legislation.

Resolving Differences

For a bill to reach the President, the House and Senate must pass identical versions.

If they pass different versions, a Conference Committee of members from both chambers negotiates a compromise “conference report.” These conferees work to produce a unified version of the bill.

This report must be approved by both chambers without amendments.

Alternatively, one chamber can accept the other’s version, or they can exchange amendments back and forth (sometimes called “ping-pong”) until reaching agreement.

This stage represents a crucial negotiation phase where final details are hammered out. Failure to reach agreement can kill a bill.

Presidential Action

Once passed in identical form by both chambers, the bill is formally prepared (a process called “enrolling”) and sent to the President, who can:

• Sign it into law: The bill becomes an Act of Congress with a Public Law number (e.g., P.L. 107-101). It’s printed in the U.S. Statutes at Large and eventually incorporated into the United States Code, which organizes federal laws by subject.
• Veto it: The bill returns to Congress with the President’s objections. Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers, making the bill law without the President’s signature.
• Take no action while Congress is in session: If the President doesn’t sign within 10 days (excluding Sundays) while Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law without signature.
• Pocket veto: If Congress adjourns before the 10-day period and the President hasn’t signed, the bill doesn’t become law. Unlike a regular veto, Congress cannot override a pocket veto. The bill would need to be reintroduced in the next session.

The President’s action is the final major step in the legislative process. The veto power is a significant check by the executive on the legislative branch, while the override power is the legislature’s counter-check on the President.

Key Players in Lawmaking

Several key actors shape the legislative process:

• Congress: Introduces bills, debates them, offers amendments, and votes. Congress also funds government functions (often called the “power of the purse“), holds hearings, oversees the executive branch, and conducts investigations. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates specific powers, such as declaring war, coining money, raising armed forces, regulating commerce, establishing immigration rules, and creating federal courts.
• The President: Though head of the executive branch, the President plays a crucial role in legislation. The President recommends legislation to Congress, often outlining priorities in the annual State of the Union address. The President’s most direct tool is the power to sign bills into law or veto them. Even the threat of a veto can significantly influence content and trajectory of bills.
• Party Leaders: In both chambers, party leaders (such as the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and party Whips) play vital roles. They organize their caucuses or conferences, plan the legislative schedule, coordinate strategy, and guide bills through their chambers. Majority party leaders in the House have substantial power to set the policy agenda and decide which proposals receive floor consideration.

Understanding these roles and powers is essential to grasping the dynamics, negotiations, and power struggles in the American legislative process.

More Than Just Bills

Congress uses several types of legislative measures:

• Bills (H.R. or S.): The most common form for creating new laws, amending existing laws, or repealing laws. Bills can address general matters (public bills) or focus on specific individuals or entities (private bills). To become law, bills must be passed identically by both chambers and signed by the President (or have a veto overridden).
• Joint Resolutions (H.J. Res. or S.J. Res.): Similar to bills procedurally, also requiring approval by both chambers and the President’s signature (unless proposing a constitutional amendment). They’re used for specific purposes like authorizing continuing appropriations, emergency appropriations, or proposing constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures rather than the President’s signature.
• Concurrent Resolutions (H. Con. Res. or S. Con. Res.): Must pass both chambers but don’t require the President’s signature and don’t have the force of law. They’re typically used for matters affecting both houses’ operations, expressing collective sentiment, or for the annual congressional budget resolution.
• Simple Resolutions (H. Res. or S. Res.): Deal with matters entirely within one chamber, such as adopting rules, creating committees, or expressing the chamber’s sentiments. They don’t require approval by the other chamber or the President and don’t have the force of law.

This variety of legislative tools allows Congress to address a wide range of issues, from binding national laws to managing internal affairs and expressing views on matters of public concern.

Judicial Review: Protecting the Constitution

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine laws and governmental actions to determine if they align with the Constitution. If a court finds a conflict, it can declare the law unconstitutional and invalid.

The Birth of Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention judicial review. This power was established by the landmark 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison.

The case originated in a charged political context. Outgoing President John Adams made last-minute “midnight appointments” of Federalist judges, including William Marbury as justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. While Marbury’s commission was signed and sealed, it wasn’t delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson told his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver these commissions.

Marbury sued Madison directly in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus (court order) to force delivery of his commission. He based his claim on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Chief Justice John Marshall faced a dilemma: ordering Madison to deliver the commission might be ignored by Jefferson’s administration, weakening the Court, but doing nothing would appear to yield to political pressure.

Marshall’s solution was ingenious. He addressed three questions:

1. Did Marbury have a right to the commission? Marshall said yes; once signed and sealed, the appointment was complete.
2. If his right was violated, did the law provide a remedy? Again yes, stating that the “essence of civil liberty” is the right to claim legal protection when injured. The U.S. government is one “of laws and not of men.”
3. Was a Supreme Court mandamus the proper remedy? Here, Marshall found the crucial point.

While the Judiciary Act appeared to grant the Supreme Court power to issue writs in cases like Marbury’s, Marshall declared this provision unconstitutional. He reasoned that Article III of the Constitution specifically defines the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, and Congress couldn’t expand it.

Marshall famously stated: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is… If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

Since the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” (Article VI), Marshall concluded that any ordinary law conflicting with it must be void.

By striking down a portion of a congressional statute as unconstitutional, Marbury v. Madison established judicial review. Marshall’s clever approach asserted this power while avoiding direct confrontation with the executive branch by denying Marbury’s request on jurisdictional grounds.

This decision established the judiciary’s role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional meaning without creating an immediate constitutional crisis. It’s now so fundamental to American democracy that it’s studied internationally as a model.

Constitutional Basis

While Marbury provided the case law, judicial review has theoretical foundations in the Constitution’s structure:

• Article III vests “judicial Power” in the Supreme Court and lower courts. This power extends to cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made…” If courts decide cases under the Constitution, they must be able to interpret what it means and whether a law conflicts with it.
• Article VI contains the Supremacy Clause, stating the Constitution and laws made “in Pursuance thereof” are the “supreme Law of the Land.” This implies that for a federal law to be supreme, it must conform to the Constitution. Courts must determine if laws meet this standard.

Further support comes from The Federalist No. 78, where Alexander Hamilton argued that an independent judiciary was essential for a “limited Constitution.” He wrote that courts must “declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” Hamilton viewed the judiciary as an “intermediate body between the people and their legislature,” ensuring representatives acted within their authority.

Judicial review is understood as an inherent component of a constitutional system with a supreme, binding charter. While Marbury was the first Supreme Court decision to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, the doctrine has evolved and been applied throughout American history in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

How Judicial Review Works

Getting to Court

Federal courts only decide actual “Cases” and “Controversies,” not abstract questions. This means:

• There must be a real dispute between opposing parties
• The plaintiff must have “standing” (a direct and concrete injury that a court decision could remedy)
• The issue must be “ripe” (not premature or based on hypothetical future harm) and not “moot” (not already resolved)

A case challenging a federal law’s constitutionality typically begins in a U.S. District Court (federal trial court). The decision can be appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it hears, typically choosing those involving significant constitutional questions or conflicts in how lower courts have interpreted federal law.

Judicial Interpretation Methods

When reviewing laws, judges use various interpretive approaches:

• Textualism: Focuses on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution or law
• Originalism/Original Intent/Original Meaning: Interprets based on the understanding of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution
• Precedent (Stare Decisis): Following principles from prior similar cases (“to stand by things decided”). The Supreme Court can overrule its own precedents, especially in constitutional matters
• Structural Reasoning: Inferring rules from relationships established by the Constitution (e.g., separation of powers, federalism)
• Prudentialism: Considering practical consequences of different interpretations and balancing costs and benefits
• Living Constitution/Adaptivism: Viewing the Constitution as a dynamic document whose meaning can evolve to meet contemporary needs

Judicial philosophies also influence decisions:

• Judicial Activism: More willingness to strike down laws or actions, sometimes to protect rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution
• Judicial Restraint: More deference to elected branches, exercising judicial review more sparingly and focusing on narrower constitutional interpretation

Possible Outcomes

When a court reviews a law or action, it may:

• Uphold the Law/Action: Find it consistent with the Constitution
• Strike Down the Law/Action: Declare it unconstitutional, rendering it void and unenforceable
• Narrow the Law’s Application: Interpret it in a way that avoids constitutional conflict
• Remand the Case: Send it back to a lower court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling

Judicial review must be exercised carefully to avoid violating separation of powers by usurping the legislative duty to create law. Judges must interpret the law, not make it from the bench.

Scope and Limits of Judicial Review

Judicial review can be applied to:

• Federal Laws (Statutes): Acts of Congress can be reviewed for constitutionality
• Executive Actions: Actions of the President and federal agencies, including executive orders and regulations
• State Laws and Actions: Federal courts can review state laws and actions if they raise questions under the U.S. Constitution or federal law (due to the Supremacy Clause)

Several factors limit judicial power:

• Constitutional Interpretation Doctrines: Methods of interpretation can constrain outcomes
• Self-Restraint Doctrines: Courts have developed prudential rules, such as the “doctrine of strict necessity” (deciding constitutional issues only when unavoidable), presuming statutes are constitutional, and avoiding “political questions” best left to other branches
• Congressional Power: Congress has some control over federal courts’ appellate jurisdiction, potentially limiting the types of cases they can hear
• Enforcement: Courts rely on the executive branch to enforce their decisions. If the executive refuses, the court’s power is diminished, as with President Andrew Jackson’s defiance of Worcester v. Georgia regarding Cherokee lands
• Public Opinion and Legitimacy: While insulated, courts aren’t immune to long-term shifts in public values. The judiciary’s power ultimately rests on its legitimacy and public acceptance of its role

Judicial review, born from a specific historical moment but rooted in American constitutionalism, ensures government action remains within bounds of the nation’s highest law. Its careful application is essential for maintaining rule of law and protecting individual rights.

Legislative Action vs. Judicial Review: Key Differences

Core Functions

• Legislative Action: Congress makes laws by identifying needs, debating solutions, drafting bills, and navigating the enactment process. Congress has sole authority to enact new federal legislation or change existing laws.
• Judicial Review: Courts interpret laws and evaluate whether they conform to the Constitution. Courts don’t initiate laws; they react when specific cases challenge their meaning or constitutionality. The Supreme Court acts as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

How They Start and What They Produce

• Legislative Action:
  • Starts with perceived societal needs, policy goals of elected officials or parties, public demand, lobbying, or events requiring response
  • Results in statutes (laws), amendments to existing laws, appropriations of funds, or resolutions expressing congressional sentiment. If a bill fails, the outcome is preservation of the status quo
• Judicial Review:
  • Triggered by lawsuits where parties with legal standing challenge the constitutionality of specific laws, regulations, or actions
  • Produces judgments or court decisions that uphold laws as constitutional, strike them down as unconstitutional (rendering them void), interpret them in specific ways (becoming binding precedent), or remand cases to lower courts

Power and Limitations

• Legislative Branch:
  • Powers enumerated in Constitution (Article I, Section 8), including taxing, spending, regulating commerce, declaring war, raising armies, and making all laws “necessary and proper” for executing its powers
  • Limited by enumerated powers doctrine (powers not delegated are reserved to states or people), specific prohibitions (Article I, Section 9), Bill of Rights, presidential veto, judicial review, and federalism
• Judicial Branch:
  • Power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties. Can invalidate federal and state laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution
  • Limited by case or controversy requirement, standing/ripeness/mootness doctrines, political question doctrine, lack of enforcement power, judicial self-restraint, and checks from other branches (presidential appointments, Senate confirmations, impeachment, control of jurisdiction and budget)

Comparison Table

This comparison highlights that legislative action is a proactive, policy-driven process creating rules for the future, while judicial review is a reactive, case-driven process ensuring those rules comply with the Constitution. Both are essential for a functioning constitutional democracy.

Checks and Balances in Action

The American system features “checks and balances” where each branch has powers to limit or influence the others. This dynamic interplay is particularly evident between the legislative and judicial branches.

Checks on Legislative Power

• Executive Check (Presidential Veto): The President’s most direct check on legislative power. If the President disapproves of a bill, they can refuse to sign it and return it to Congress with objections. This prevents the bill from becoming law unless Congress musters a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Even the threat of a veto can influence the legislative process, compelling Congress to negotiate or modify legislation.
• Judicial Check (Judicial Review): The judiciary can declare laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President) unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. This profound check allows courts to invalidate the elected legislature’s work if it oversteps constitutional bounds.

These checks ensure that legislative power, while central to representative democracy, isn’t absolute and remains accountable to executive oversight and constitutional principles.

Checks on Judicial Power

The judiciary is also subject to checks from other branches, ensuring it doesn’t become an unchecked “despotic branch,” as Thomas Jefferson once worried.

• Executive Checks:
  • Appointment Power: The President nominates all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. This significant long-term check allows Presidents to shape the courts’ ideological direction by appointing judges who share their judicial philosophy.
  • Enforcement of Decisions: The judiciary relies on the executive branch to enforce its rulings. A President’s reluctance or refusal to enforce a court decision can limit the judiciary’s practical power.
  • Pardons and Reprieves: The President can grant pardons and reprieves for federal offenses, altering the consequences of judicial proceedings.
• Legislative Checks:
  • Confirmation of Appointments: The Senate must confirm all presidential nominations for federal judgeships. This gives the Senate a crucial role in vetting judicial appointments.
  • Impeachment and Removal: Congress can impeach and remove federal judges from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While rare, this serves as an ultimate check against judicial misconduct.
  • Controlling Jurisdiction and Court Structure: Congress has significant power to determine the federal judiciary’s structure, establish lower federal courts, and make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also determine the number of Supreme Court justices.
  • Amending the Constitution: If Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation, it can, with the states, amend the Constitution to effectively overturn a Court decision. This is difficult but represents a fundamental check.
  • Passing New Legislation: When the Court interprets a statute in a way Congress disagrees with, Congress can pass new legislation to clarify its intent or effectively overturn the Court’s statutory interpretation.
  • Controlling the Budget: Congress controls the federal judiciary’s budget, which can influence its operations.

These checks ensure the judicial branch, while independent in decision-making, remains part of a larger system of shared governance and accountability.

The Ongoing Dialogue

The relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court isn’t a one-way street where the Court has the final say. Instead, it’s often a dynamic “dialogue,” particularly concerning statutory interpretation.

When the Supreme Court interprets a law passed by Congress, Congress has several ways to respond if it disagrees with the interpretation or its consequences:

• Passing New Statutes or Amending Existing Ones: Congress can pass new legislation to clarify its original intent, effectively overriding the Court’s statutory interpretation, or to address issues arising from a Court decision. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 overturned several Supreme Court rulings that had made it harder to prove job discrimination. Similarly, after the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 on First Amendment grounds in U.S. v. Alvarez, Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which narrowed the original legislation to address constitutional concerns.
• Controlling Jurisdiction: Congress has power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction and regulate lower federal courts’ jurisdiction. While rarely used to directly overturn specific decisions (due to potential negative consequences like permanently establishing the precedent Congress dislikes), the threat of such action can influence the judiciary.
• Constitutional Amendment: For constitutional interpretations, the most definitive response is a constitutional amendment, though this has a high bar. For example, the Eleventh Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia, and the Sixteenth Amendment allowed a federal income tax after the Court had struck down an earlier version.

This ongoing interaction, where Congress legislates, courts interpret, and Congress may legislate again in response, illustrates that law development is often iterative. It’s a constitutional conversation where each branch shapes the legal landscape.

This dialogue isn’t dysfunction but a feature designed for resilience and adaptation, ensuring laws reflect both enduring constitutional principles and evolving societal understanding. The Supreme Court, aware of Congress’s potential responses, may even anticipate legislative preferences when interpreting ambiguous statutes.

How Courts Interpret Laws

When Congress passes laws with unclear language or application to unforeseen circumstances, courts must interpret their meaning. This statutory interpretation process is crucial for how judicial power interacts with legislative action.

The primary goal is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent. Courts use several tools and principles, often called “canons of construction”:

• Plain Meaning Rule: Interpretation begins with the ordinary meaning of the words. If language is clear and unambiguous, courts generally enforce that plain meaning, even if there’s evidence the legislature might have intended something slightly different.
• Statutory Context: Courts look at the statute as a whole, interpreting specific provisions in light of the broader statutory scheme. Every part should be given effect if possible.
• Legislative History: If statutory language is ambiguous, courts may examine committee reports, congressional debates, and statements made during the legislative process to understand purpose and intent.
• Canons of Construction: These are established presumptions and linguistic rules guiding interpretation. Examples include in pari materia (statutes on the same subject should be interpreted consistently) or expressio unius est exclusio alterius (a list of specific items implies exclusion of unlisted items).
• Prior Judicial Decisions (Precedent): If a court has previously interpreted the same or similar statutory language, that interpretation often guides current decisions.

The choice of interpretive tools and their weight can be influenced by a judge’s judicial philosophy (e.g., textualism vs. purposivism). Regardless of philosophy, the judiciary’s interpretive function is essential for applying laws to specific situations and resolving disputes arising under them.

Landmark Examples in U.S. History

Major Legislative Acts

Congress has enacted numerous laws throughout history with far-reaching impacts. These acts often arise from significant societal shifts, pressing national needs, or evolving understandings of justice and public welfare.

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964: This monumental legislation responded to a profound moral and social crisis. Enacted as Public Law 88-352, it outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Key provisions:
  • Title II: Barred discrimination in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, theaters) involved in interstate commerce.
  • Title VI: Prohibited discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance. This was powerful, as many institutions relied on federal funds. President Kennedy stated in 1963, “Simple justice requires that public funds…not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination.”
  • Title VII: Prohibited employment discrimination by employers and unions.
  The Act fundamentally altered American society by providing federal protection against discrimination in critical areas of life.
• The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010): Commonly known as the Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare,” this comprehensive health care reform (Public Law 111-148 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Public Law 111-152) aimed to increase access to health insurance, improve care quality, and control healthcare costs. Its three primary goals were:
  • To make affordable health insurance available to more people through subsidies (“premium tax credits”) for households with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level.
  • To expand Medicaid to cover all adults with income below 138% of the federal poverty level (though subsequent judicial review made this expansion optional for states).
  • To support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower overall health care costs.
  Key provisions included the individual mandate (requiring most individuals to have health insurance or pay a penalty, later effectively repealed), establishing health insurance marketplaces, prohibiting coverage denial for pre-existing conditions, and allowing young adults to remain on parents’ insurance until age 26. The ACA represented a significant effort to address long-standing issues in the American healthcare system.

These acts, among others like the Social Security Act of 1935, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, demonstrate how legislative action can be a powerful force for societal change, reflecting the nation’s evolving priorities and values.

Important Judicial Review Cases

Supreme Court cases exercising judicial review have clarified constitutional rights, settled disputes between government branches, and had lasting impacts on American life.

• Marbury v. Madison (1803): As discussed earlier, this case established judicial review itself, empowering the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress, executive actions, and state laws unconstitutional if they conflict with the Constitution. Its significance cannot be overstated, as it fundamentally shaped the balance of power among federal branches.
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools “inherently unequal” and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and became a crucial catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. Brown demonstrates judicial review’s power to reinterpret constitutional guarantees and mandate profound societal change in pursuit of equality.
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966): This landmark case established that criminal suspects in police custody must be informed of specific constitutional rights before interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney (the “Miranda warnings”). The Court ruled that statements obtained without these procedural safeguards were inadmissible in court, based on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. Miranda significantly altered law enforcement procedures and underscored the judiciary’s role in protecting individual rights within the criminal justice system.
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): This case involved a major constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court issued a complex ruling:
  • It upheld the individual mandate not under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, but as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
  • It found that the ACA’s mandatory Medicaid expansion (threatening states with loss of all existing federal Medicaid funding) was unconstitutionally coercive, effectively making the expansion optional for states.
  This case demonstrates judicial review directly impacting major legislation. It affirmed much of the ACA while setting limits on congressional power under the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause, showing the judiciary’s role in interpreting federal authority scope.

These cases highlight how judicial review serves not only as a check on other branches but also as a dynamic force in defining and redefining constitutional meaning and individual rights. The Federalist No. 78’s prediction that judicial review would protect “the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals” has been borne out through such decisions.

How to Make Your Voice Heard

Understanding legislative action and judicial review empowers citizens to engage more effectively with their government. While direct participation avenues differ, individuals and groups can influence both processes.

In the Legislative Arena:

• Contacting Elected Officials: Communicate views on pending legislation or policy issues to Senators and Representatives through letters, emails, phone calls, or town hall meetings.
• Voting: Elections are the most fundamental way citizens influence the legislative branch by choosing representatives.
• Supporting Advocacy Groups: Organizations lobbying Congress on specific issues amplify individual voices and can significantly impact legislative outcomes.
• Public Comment on Regulations: Many laws delegate authority to executive agencies to create specific regulations. Citizens can submit public comments on these proposed rules.
• Testifying at Hearings: Individuals with relevant expertise or personal stories can sometimes testify at congressional committee hearings.
• Proposing Legislation (Indirectly): While only members of Congress can introduce bills, citizens and groups can develop legislative proposals and convince a Representative or Senator to sponsor them.

In the Judicial Arena:

Direct participation in the judicial process is typically limited to being a party in a lawsuit or an attorney. However, citizens can influence the judiciary indirectly:

• Supporting Public Interest Litigation: Many organizations bring “test cases” to court to challenge laws they believe are unconstitutional or clarify legal rights. Supporting these groups can help shape judicial precedent.
• Public Discourse and Nominations: Engaging in public discussion about constitutional issues, judicial philosophy, and Supreme Court nominations can influence the political climate surrounding the judiciary. Senators, who confirm judicial nominees, are often attuned to public sentiment.
• Understanding Precedent and Judicial Philosophy: Learning about how past court decisions and different judicial approaches shape legal outcomes can inform advocacy and understanding.
• Jury Service: Serving on a jury is a direct form of citizen participation in the judicial process at the trial court level.

Effective civic engagement often requires understanding how legislative and judicial processes can be used together or sequentially. For example, the Civil Rights Movement involved extensive legislative lobbying culminating in laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and strategic litigation leading to landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education.

These are not mutually exclusive avenues. Advocacy groups might lobby Congress for a new law while simultaneously preparing litigation to challenge existing laws or defend newly enacted ones. The legislative process can be influenced by public opinion shaped by court cases, and court cases can be brought to clarify or challenge laws made by Congress.

This synergy is a hallmark of dynamic democracy, allowing citizens and groups to develop comprehensive strategies for achieving policy goals or defending their interests. By understanding both processes, Americans can more effectively participate in their governance system and contribute to its ongoing evolution.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.