Definition of Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws, treaties, policies or executive orders relevant to cases before the court and nullify (overturn) those that are found unconstitutional.
Judicial review is part of the United States' system of checks and balances on government. The Supreme Court has the power to review acts of the Legislative (Congress) and Executive (Presidential) branches to ensure they don't become too powerful or abrogate the Constitutional rights of the country's citizens.
Historical Examples
The US Supreme Court first exercised judicial review 1796, in the case of Hylton v. United States, although the rationale for using it had been laid in Federalist No. 78. Hylton v. United States was the first instance in which the Supreme Court evaluated the constitutionality of a federal law. In Hylton, the legislation, a carriage tax, was upheld. In a later case that year, Ware v. Hylton, the Ellsworth Court determined The Treaty of Paris took precedence over an otherwise constitutional state law and nullified the law.
The US Supreme Court case most often credited with affirming the doctrine of judicial review is Marbury v Madison,(1803) in which Chief Justice John Marshall declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. This was the first time the Supreme Court overturned federal legislation. It greatly strengthened the power of the judicial branch, which had thus far been weaker than the other two.
More Current Examples
Many cases that come before the Supreme Court involve judicial review, because the justices are often asked to determine whether a law, or the application of a law, violates a person's or groups constitutional rights.
In their decision in the case Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC, et al. v. Bennett, Secretary of the State of Arizona, (2011), the US Supreme Court held that an Arizona law, The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which granted dollar-for-dollar matching campaign funds from the state treasury to candidates for public office who had opted for the public financing route instead of private donations unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it placed a heavier burden on privately subsidized candidates than on publicly subsidized candidates, which unfairly limited the privately subsidized candidates' political speech (in a practical sense, it also had the potential to cost taxpayers a lot of money, but that wasn't the question before the Court).
The Court also exercises judicial review when it evaluates and upholds a particular law, as was the case in DePierre v. United States, (2011), in which a defendant challenged federal sentencing guidelines that appeared to penalize manufacturers and distributors of cocaine-based substances (like crack) more than it penalized manufacturers and distributors of pure cocaine. The defendant argued that in order to apply harsher sentencing under federal law (U. S. C. §841(b)(1)(A)) the jury should be instructed that the prosecution had to prove the cocaine-based substances was actually "crack" cocaine. The defendant believed the law was vague and subject to a different interpretation than was commonly used. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the law was sufficiently clear as written.
Some better known examples of judicial review include Roe v. Wade, (1973), in which the Court overturned a Texas law prohibiting abortion; Brown v. Board of Education, (1954), in which the Court overturned state laws permitting racially segregated public schools; Texas v. Johnson, (1989), in which the Court overturned a Texas law prohibiting desecration of the US flag; and Lawrence v. Texas, (2003), in which the Court overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
Any case that challenges state or Federal Laws involves judicial review, so there are many, many examples to choose from (and they don't all involve Texas laws).
The most obvious example is the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), when Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the Judicial Branch's right of judicial review by nullifying Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Some other examples include a US District Court declaring President Obama's Executive Order placing a moratorium on all off-shore drilling unconstitutional; the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Burger, ordering former President Nixon to provide the Special Investigator of the Watergate scandal the President's secretly taped discussions; and the Supreme Court declaring unconstitutional Congress' failed system of using military tribunals to consider writs of habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees and stripping the Court's of appellate jurisdiction over subsequent appeals.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The Supreme Court exercised judicial review in the McCulloch v. Maryland case when it decided Maryland's tax on the federal bank was unconstitutional.
quasi-judicial behaviour is action taken which mimics the role of a court. For example, a government minister might take decisions on planning appeals
quasi-judicial behaviour is action taken which mimics the role of a court. For example, a government minister might take decisions on planning appeals
Yes, the judicial system of the present day to that of Rome are similar given the fact that the decisions by appellate courts are binding.
discrimination
discrimination
Previous Judicial Decisions
Previous Judicial Decisions
Laws are enacted by the legislature and judicial decisions are made by judges.
Judicial
The judicial decisions that affect the excecutive branch are as such effective because they can essentially limit the powers of the branch and declare certain acts unconstitutional.
Magistrates make administrative hearing decisions.
Judicial restraint