The extent of their powers and the effectiveness of checks and balances. (Edexcel A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

20.6.4 The extent of their powers and the effectiveness of checks and balances.

The Extent of US Supreme Court Powers

Judicial Review

• Definition: Judicial review is the power of the US Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws or executive actions that are found to be unconstitutional.
• Origin: The power of judicial review was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803). Chief Justice John Marshall declared that it is the duty of the judicial branch to say what the law is, thereby affirming the Court's authority to strike down legislation and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution.
• Importance: Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to play a crucial role in shaping public policy and ensuring that all laws and government actions adhere to constitutional principles.

Final Court of Appeal

• Role: The Supreme Court serves as the final court of appeal in the US judicial system. Cases that reach the Supreme Court have typically been appealed through lower federal courts or state courts.

• Significance: As the highest court, the Supreme Court's decisions are final and binding on all other courts in the country. Its rulings set legal precedents that lower courts must follow, effectively shaping the interpretation and application of the law nationwide. Interpretation of the Constitution

• Living Constitution vs. Originalism: The Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution through different lenses, most notably the living constitution approach (which argues that the Constitution should evolve with societal changes) and originalism (which argues that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was written).

• Impact on Public Policy: The Court's interpretation of the Constitution can lead to significant changes in public policy. For example, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage, which dramatically shifted national policy on marriage equality. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

• Judicial Activism: When the Court actively interprets the Constitution to address societal issues, it can lead to significant changes in public policy. Examples include Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognised the constitutional right to abortion, and Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ended racial segregation in public schools.

• Judicial Restraint: Judicial restraint refers to the Court taking a more conservative approach, deferring to the decisions of the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear constitutional violation. An example is NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), where Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act, showing restraint by respecting the legislature's role in policymaking.

Influence on Social and Political Issues

• Role in Civil Rights: The Supreme Court has played a central role in advancing civil rights, from ending segregation in Brown v. Board of Education to expanding LGBTQ+ rights in Obergefell v. Hodges.
• Controversial Decisions: Some decisions have sparked significant political and social controversy, such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which allowed for increased corporate spending in elections, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which overturned the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade.

Effectiveness of Checks and Balances on the Supreme Court

Congressional Checks

• Amending the Constitution: Congress has the power to propose constitutional amendments that can overturn Supreme Court decisions. However, this is a difficult process requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. This makes it a rarely used check on the Court's power. An example is the unsuccessful attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which sought to guarantee equal rights regardless of sex.
• Legislation: Congress can pass new legislation to modify the impact of a Supreme Court ruling or address issues raised by the Court. For instance, after the Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which weakened the Voting Rights Act, Congress attempted (though unsuccessfully) to pass new voting rights protections.
• Control of the Court's Jurisdiction: Congress has the authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, under Article III of the Constitution. However, this power is rarely exercised.

Executive Checks

• Appointment Power: The President has the power to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, subject to Senate confirmation. This allows the executive branch to influence the ideological balance of the Court. For example, President Trump's appointment of three conservative justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) shifted the Court to the right.

• Enforcement Power: The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the Supreme Court's decisions. While the President is constitutionally bound to enforce the Court's rulings, there have been historical instances where the executive branch has been slow or reluctant to comply, such as in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education. Judicial Checks

• Stare Decisis (Precedent): The principle of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, acts as a self-imposed check on the Court's power. By following previous rulings, the Court ensures legal consistency and stability. However, the Court can overturn precedent, as seen in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

• Internal Deliberations: The Court's decisions are often the result of extensive internal deliberations and negotiations among the justices. Majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions reflect the diverse views within the Court and provide a check on any one perspective dominating. Public Opinion

• Influence on Legitimacy: Public opinion serves as an informal check on the Supreme Court. While justices are not elected and serve lifetime appointments, they are aware of the need to maintain the Court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Significant public backlash to a ruling can lead to calls for reform or changes in the Court's composition.

• Example: The public response to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has led to increased scrutiny of the Court and discussions about potential reforms, such as term limits for justices or expanding the number of justices on the Court.

Limits on Supreme Court's Power

• Dependence on the Other Branches: The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce its rulings. It relies on the executive branch to carry out its decisions and on Congress to fund and support the judiciary. This dependence acts as a check on the Court's power, as seen in historical instances where enforcement was delayed or obstructed.
• Impeachment of Justices: Justices can be impeached by Congress for "high crimes and misdemeanours", although this has rarely occurred. The threat of impeachment serves as a potential check on justices who may act in ways that are seen as violating the law or ethical standards.