What is judicial review? The definition in plain English
Here's the simplest version. A court is deciding a real case. One side says, "the law you're about to apply is unconstitutional." The court checks. If the law really does conflict with the Constitution, the court sets it aside and decides the case without it.
That's it. That's judicial review. It also covers actions by the executive branch: an executive order, an agency rule, a police search.
- Who does it
- Federal and state courts in the U.S.; the U.S. Supreme Court has the final word on federal questions
- What gets reviewed
- Federal laws, state laws, executive actions, agency rules
- Where it comes from
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), reading Article III and the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI)
- Result
- The law isn't applied in that case; precedent makes the ruling stick everywhere
Where it came from: Hamilton, Marshall, and a missing commission
The idea was floating around before 1803. In Federalist No. 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton argued courts would be "the least dangerous" branch, and that when a statute clashes with the Constitution, judges should prefer the Constitution because it reflects the deeper will of the people.
Then came the real test. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall held that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 tried to expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows. So it was void. His line is still quoted constantly: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
A few years later the Court did the same to a state law in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), and in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), it confirmed it could review state court decisions on federal questions too.
Funny thing about power: the branch with no army and no budget ended up holding the referee's whistle. Historians still argue about whether Marshall planned it or just played a bad hand brilliantly. Either way, a quiet procedural ruling turned into one of the biggest power moves in American history.
How judicial review works in a real case
American courts don't give advisory opinions. You can't just mail the Supreme Court a question. There has to be an actual dispute, and the person suing needs standing: a concrete injury, caused by the defendant, that a court can fix (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)).
- A dispute starts in a trial court, state or federal.
- Someone raises a constitutional argument, like "this search violated the Fourth Amendment."
- The court decides whether the law or action conflicts with the Constitution, using tests like the levels of scrutiny.
- Appeals can push the question up, sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court.
- Precedent spreads it. Lower courts follow the ruling, so the law is effectively dead everywhere.
Courts also dodge some questions. Under the political question doctrine, certain issues belong to Congress or the President. In Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422 (2019), the Court said partisan gerrymandering claims are not for federal courts to decide.
Famous judicial review examples
| Case | What the Court reviewed | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison (1803) | Part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 | Struck down; judicial review established |
| Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) | The Missouri Compromise | Struck down; now seen as a disaster |
| Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | State school segregation laws | Unconstitutional under Equal Protection |
| Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) | Truman's seizure of steel mills | Executive action blocked |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022) | Mississippi abortion law | Upheld; Roe overruled |
Notice something? Judicial review cuts both ways. It can strike down a law, and it can uphold one. It also lets the Court revisit its own past calls, which is where stare decisis comes in.
Judicial review in the U.S. vs. South Korea
The U.S. model is decentralized: any court can refuse to apply an unconstitutional law. Most of Europe and South Korea use a centralized model, an idea associated with Hans Kelsen and the Austrian Constitutional Court of 1920.
In Korea, if a regular court thinks a statute might be unconstitutional, it refers the question to the Constitutional Court (Constitution, Art. 107(1)). The Court, created in 1988, decides it (Art. 111). Ordinary courts still review administrative regulations themselves (Art. 107(2)).
| United States | South Korea | |
|---|---|---|
| Who reviews statutes | Every court | Constitutional Court only |
| Source | Case law | Written constitution |
| Effect | Not applied; binding via precedent | Statute loses force (from the decision) |
Both systems come from the same worry: the separation of powers needs somebody to enforce the lines.
Cash Note
청년문화예술패스 하반기 추가 발급 — 2006·2007년생 최대 20만 원, 11월 30일까지
39 readers so far
Make Korean friends & friends from around the world learning Korean
Chat easily with people from many countries who love Korea.
Beauty UP
대학생 가성비 기초 루틴 — 꼭 필요한 3단계만 남기기
106 readers so far
Psych UP
나의 돈 성향 테스트｜저축 다람쥐? 오늘만 사는 플렉서?
2 people have taken it so far
Criticism: should unelected judges have the last word?
Thomas Jefferson never bought it. He thought each branch should interpret the Constitution for itself. In 1893, James Bradley Thayer argued courts should strike laws down only for a "clear mistake."
The big modern framing is Alexander Bickel's "counter-majoritarian difficulty" from The Least Dangerous Branch (1962). Judges with life tenure override laws passed by elected majorities. Is that democratic? (There's a whole page planned on the counter-majoritarian difficulty.)
The other side says that's the point. Constitutions protect minorities from majorities, and in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Court insisted states couldn't ignore Brown. Without judicial review, rights would depend on whoever won the last election.
Every generation fights about this, just with different cases. Abortion, guns, affirmative action, agency power: the names change, but the question underneath is always who gets to say what the Constitution means. Keep that in your back pocket for the next part.
Using judicial review in exams and papers
- Define first, then source: "Judicial review is…" then Marbury, Article III, and the Supremacy Clause. Graders love that order.
- Show both sides: Hamilton's Federalist No. 78 vs. Bickel's counter-majoritarian difficulty.
- Compare systems: U.S. decentralized vs. Korea's centralized Constitutional Court in one table.
- Korean study material: The Five Powers of the Constitutional Court: Meaning and Requirements, from Constitutional Review of Statutes on Court Referral to Impeachment, Party Dissolution, Competence Disputes and Constitutional Complaints lays out the Korean Constitutional Court's powers, handy for the comparison section.
- Is judicial review in the U.S. Constitution?
- No. The words don't appear. The Supreme Court established it in Marbury v. Madison (1803), reasoning from Article III and the Supremacy Clause.
- What is an example of judicial review?
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Court held state school segregation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- Can state courts use judicial review?
- Yes. State courts can refuse to apply laws that violate the federal or their state constitution, subject to review by higher courts.
- How is Korea different?
- Korea concentrates review of statutes in its Constitutional Court; regular courts refer the question instead of deciding it.
References and official sources
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Justia
- Constitution Annotated, Article III and judicial review. congress.gov
- The Federalist Papers, full text (No. 78). Library of Congress
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Justia
- Judicial review, Wex. Cornell LII
- 대한민국헌법 제107조·제111조. 국가법령정보센터
- Alexander M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch (1962); James B. Thayer, "The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law," 7 Harv. L. Rev. 129 (1893).