digplanet beta 1: Athena
Share digplanet:


Applied sciences






















This article is about court power over non-judicial branches. For court power over lower courts, see Appellate review.

Judicial Review is the doctrine under which legislative and/or executive actions are subject to review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary. A specific court with judicial review power may annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority (such as the terms of a written constitution). Judicial review is an example of check and balances in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary checks the other branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ from country to country and state to state.


Judicial review can be understood in the context of two distinct—but parallel—legal systems, civil law and common law, and also by two distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized with respect to the principles and doctrines of legislative supremacy and the separation of powers.

First, two distinct legal systems, civil law and common law, have different views about judicial review. Common-law judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. In the civil-law tradition, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles.

Secondly, the idea of separation of powers is another theory about how a democratic society's government should be organized. In contrast to legislative supremacy, the idea of separation of powers was first introduced by Montesquieu;[1] it was later institutionalized in the United States by the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison under the court of John Marshall. Separation of powers is based on the idea that no branch of government should be able to exert power over any other branch without due process of law; each branch of government should have a check on the powers of the other branches of government, thus creating a regulative balance among all branches of government. The key to this idea is checks and balances. In the United States, judicial review is considered a key check on the powers of the other two branches of government by the judiciary, although the power itself is not granted by the Constitution.

Differences in organizing "democratic" societies led to different views regarding judicial review, with societies based on common law and those stressing a separation of powers being the most likely to utilize judicial review. Nevertheless, many countries whose legal systems are based on the idea of legislative supremacy have learned the possible dangers and limitations of entrusting power exclusively to the legislative branch of government. Many countries with civil-law systems have adopted a form of judicial review to stem the tyranny of the majority.

Another reason why judicial review should be understood in the context of both the development of two distinct legal systems (civil law and common law) and two theories of democracy (legislative supremacy and separation of powers) is that some countries with common-law systems do not have judicial review of primary legislation. Though a common-law system is present in the United Kingdom, the country still has a strong attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy; consequently, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down primary legislation. However, since the United Kingdom became a member of the European Union there has been tension between its tendency toward legislative supremacy and the EU's legal system, which specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review.

Judicial review of administrative acts[edit]

Most modern legal systems allow the courts to review administrative acts (individual decisions of a public body, such as a decision to grant a subsidy or to withdraw a residence permit). In most systems, this also includes review of secondary legislation (legally-enforceable rules of general applicability adopted by administrative bodies). Some countries (notably France and Germany) have implemented a system of administrative courts which are charged with resolving disputes between members of the public and the administration. In other countries (including the United States, Scotland and the Netherlands), judicial review is carried out by regular civil courts although it may be delegated to specialized panels within these courts (such as the Administrative Court within the High Court of England and Wales). The United States employs a mixed system in which some administrative decisions are reviewed by the United States district courts (which are the general trial courts), some are reviewed directly by the United States courts of appeals and others are reviewed by specialized tribunals such as the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which, despite its name, is not technically part of the federal judicial branch). It is quite common that before a request for judicial review of an administrative act is filed with a court, certain preliminary conditions (such as a complaint to the authority itself) must be fulfilled. In most countries, the courts apply special procedures in administrative cases.

Judicial review of primary legislation[edit]

There are three broad approaches to judicial review of the constitutionality of primary legislation—that is, laws passed directly by an elected legislature. Some countries do not permit a review of the validity of primary legislation. In the United Kingdom, statutes cannot be set aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Another example is the Netherlands, where the constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation.[2]

Review by general courts[edit]

In the United States, federal and state courts (at all levels, both appellate and trial) are able to review and declare the "constitutionality", or agreement with the Constitution (or lack thereof) of legislation that is relevant to any case properly within their jurisdiction. In American legal language, "judicial review" refers primarily to the adjudication of constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is commonly held to have been established in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1803. A similar system was also adopted in Australia.

Review by a specialized court[edit]

In 1920, Czechoslovakia adopted a system of judicial review by a specialized court, the Constitutional Court as written by Hans Kelsen, a leading jurist of the time. This system was later adopted by Austria and became known as the Austrian System, also under the primary authorship of Hans Kelsen, being emulated by a number of other countries. In these systems, other courts are not competent to question the constitutionality of primary legislation; they often may, however, initiate the process of review by the Constitutional Court.

Russia adopts a mixed model since (as in the US) courts at all levels, both federal and state, are empowered to review primary legislation and declare its constitutionality; as in the Czech Republic, there is a constitutional court in charge of reviewing the constitutionality of primary legislation. The difference is that in the first case, the decision about the laws adequacy to the Russian Constitution only binds the parties to the lawsuit; in the second, the Court's decision must be followed by judges and government officials at all levels.

Judicial review in specific jurisdictions[edit]


  1. ^ Montesquieu, Baron Charles de, The Spirit of Laws
  2. ^ Article 120 of the Netherlands Constitution[dead link]

External links[edit]

Galera, S. (ed.), Judicial Review. A comparativa Analysis inside the European Legal System, Council of Europe, 2010, ISBN 978-92-871-6723-1, http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2485

See also[edit]

Original courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review — Please support Wikipedia.
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia. A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia.
288252 videos foundNext > 

Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison

The "Supreme Court Stories" video series presents the true tales of people and events surrounding pivotal Supreme Court cases. In Marbury v. Madison, the fir...

Judicial Review in Ten Minutes

A super broad overview of judicial review, the 14th amendment and various Supreme Court cases found on the US Regents exam in United States History.

Constitution of India : Judicial Review

This Lecture talks about Judicial Review.

Judicial Review

WEBSITE: http://www.teachertube.com Judicial Review.

Judicial Review

Principles and Key steps in answering problem questions on Judicial Review.

Marbury v. Madison (Con Law: Judicial Review)

The Year is 1803, and Justice John Marshall authors the landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which solidified the judicial branch's authority to interpret...

Judicial review...A Constitutional crisis is brewing in America

It's time for Congress to require SCOTUS to conform to the Federal Code of Judicial Conduct.

Marbury v Madison 1803 Judicial Review


8. AP60X - Judicial Review

Advanced Placement Government review in 60 seconds for Xtraordinary results. Workin' it one word at a time. Presented by citizenu.org and the 2 Teachers.

A UK Judicial Review Appeal (Part One of Four)

288252 videos foundNext > 

6483 news items

BBC News

Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:29:52 -0700

Two members of the British Parliament are seeking judicial review of a surveillance law that extends U.K. data retention rules and was rushed through by the government. David Davis and Tom Watson are working with U.K. human rights organization Liberty ...

Toronto Sun

Toronto Sun
Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:56:15 -0700

In a request for a judicial review filed in Federal Court, the CBC, Toronto Star and Shadow Documentary Project say Khadr consented to be interviewed, but officials at the Bowden Institution quashed the request. The outlets say the warden cited a ...

This is The West Country

Tue, 22 Jul 2014 02:45:00 -0700

A legal challenge to Defra's pilot badger culls will be heard in the High Court on 21 August. The Badger Trust's judicial review centres on a lack of independent monitoring of the culling trials, which are due to enter a second year on sites in ...
Medicine Hat News
Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:09:11 -0700

The Federal Court has ruled an application from the City of Medicine Hat for a judicial review of the sage grouse emergency protection order can proceed. A motion by the federal government had asked the Federal Court not hear the action filed jointly ...
Lexology (registration)
Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:41:15 -0700

Although the law under which the President acted provides that his actions and findings are not subject to judicial review, the courts do not view this as prohibiting judicial review when the issues raised are constitutional--in this case, whether the ...
Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:07:30 -0700

According to Planning Magazine, Larkfleet Homes issued a statement following the referendum, confirming that it had applied for judicial review of decisions relating to the plan. "We believe that the Uppingham neighbourhood plan is flawed in several ...
Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:30:00 -0700

The government's legal team also agreed, and in fact they have accepted that they must share a portion of the costs of this judicial review in the face of evidence that it was indeed justified. Not only that, but the government made it perfectly clear ...

The Guardian

The Guardian
Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:15:33 -0700

"Therefore, I would start by saying any interference with or restriction of judicial review has to be looked at very carefully … Because judicial review is so important and because the world is imperfect, I think one has to accept as well worthwhile ...

Oops, we seem to be having trouble contacting Twitter

Talk About Judicial review

You can talk about Judicial review with people all over the world in our discussions.

Support Wikipedia

A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia. Please add your support for Wikipedia!