The judicial review process (Marbury vs Madison 1803 and Fletcher vs Peck 1810). (Edexcel A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

20.1.3 The judicial review process (Marbury vs Madison 1803 and Fletcher vs Peck 1810).

Judicial Review in the U.S. Supreme Court

Importance: Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. legal system as it allows the Supreme Court to decide how the Constitution should be interpreted and applied in modern contexts. This power gives the Court the ability to update the interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that its principles remain relevant as society evolves. Judicial review serves as a critical check on the legislative and executive branches, preventing overreach and abuse of power, and safeguarding individual rights and liberties as enshrined in the Constitution.

Key Cases Establishing Judicial Review:

• Fletcher v. Peck (1810): This case extended the power of judicial review to state laws, allowing the Supreme Court to strike down state legislation that conflicts with the Constitution. This decision further solidified the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation.

Process of Judicial Review:

1. Case Initiation: A case typically begins in lower courts and is appealed through the judicial system. The Supreme Court selects a limited number of cases to hear each term, focusing on those with significant constitutional implications.
2. Written Briefs: Both sides of the case submit written arguments, outlining their legal reasoning and interpretations of the Constitution.
3. Oral Arguments: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments from both parties, where justices have the opportunity to ask questions and clarify points of law.
4. Deliberation and Decision: After hearing the case, the justices deliberate in private and come to a decision. A majority vote is required to decide the case.
5. Opinions: The Court issues a majority opinion that explains the reasoning behind the decision. Justices who agree with the outcome but for different reasons may write concurring opinions, while those who disagree may write dissenting opinions. These opinions are used as precedents in future cases.

Significant Examples of Judicial Review:

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation (2022): In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. This decision returned the power to regulate abortion to the individual states, showcasing the Supreme Court's role in reassessing and overturning its previous rulings.

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): The Supreme Court ended racial segregation in public schools by ruling that "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional. This landmark decision overturned the previous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ruling and played a crucial role in the Civil Rights Movement. Arguments For Judicial Review:

• Judicial review ensures that all laws and government actions align with the Constitution's principles and protections, safeguarding individual rights and liberties.

• It acts as a critical check on the legislative and executive branches, preventing overreach and abuse of power.

• Judicial review allows the interpretation of the Constitution to evolve with societal changes, ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant and applicable in modern contexts. Arguments Against Judicial Review:

• The power of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution; it was established by the Supreme Court itself, leading to concerns that it concentrates too much power in the judiciary.

• Critics argue that judicial review can lead to judicial overreach, where courts impose their interpretations rather than reflecting the will of the people or elected representatives, potentially undermining democracy.

• The process relies heavily on the subjective interpretation of justices, which may be influenced by personal, philosophical, or political beliefs rather than objective legal principles.