Judiciary Overreach: Steps To Take When Violating The Constitution

The federal judiciary's role in reviewing the constitutionality of statutes is well-established, with the power to declare laws unconstitutional and protect against legislative encroachment. This power of judicial review, established in the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, allows the Supreme Court to determine if a law is unconstitutional and declare it void. The Court also has the authority to strike down state laws that violate the Constitution and review executive actions, including executive orders. While federal courts have jurisdiction over civil suits involving the Constitution, federal law, and treaties, they cannot strike down a statute without a violation of federal law or the Constitution. The judiciary's independence is protected by tenure and salary guarantees, ensuring they act as an intermediate body between the people and the legislature.

Explore related products

Remedies for Human Rights Violations (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law, Series Number 27)

$56.46 $59

The Violation of a Constitutional Right.

$15.75

Ending Impunity for International Law Violations: Palestinian Bedouins and the Risk of Forced Displacement

$115

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Broken State, Collapse of Law, Human Rights Violations, Veil of Injustice and Constitutional Smokescreens—A Case ... against a Postcolonial Dictatorship

$3.99 $24.99

Accountability, International Business Operations and the Law: Providing Justice for Corporate Human Rights Violations in Global Value Chains (Globalization: Law and Policy)

$42.55 $55.99

The Supreme Court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional

The power of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional is a cornerstone of the American constitutional system. This power, known as judicial review, is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but has been established through landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In this case, the Court asserted its authority to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, establishing the precedent that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court's ability to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional is a crucial check on the power of the legislative branch. It ensures that Congress's actions align with the principles and limitations set forth in the Constitution. The Court has exercised this power numerous times throughout history, including in the following notable cases:

• Hylton v. United States (1796): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal tax on carriages, finding it did not violate the constitutional provision regarding "direct" taxes.
• Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Supreme Court asserted its authority to strike down laws as unconstitutional, with Chief Justice John Marshall stating that this responsibility was a necessary consequence of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
• Ex parte Milligan (1866): The Supreme Court struck down one of Lincoln's wartime executive orders, finding that the trial of civilians by military commissions violated several constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial in criminal cases.
• New York v. United States (1992): The Supreme Court held that Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, upholding the Constitution's allocation of power between the federal and state governments.
• City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): The Supreme Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was disproportionate and could not be understood as a response to unconstitutional behavior, thus violating the separation of powers.

The judiciary's authority to review executive orders

The authority of the judiciary to review executive orders is an important aspect of the checks and balances in the American constitutional system. While the president can issue executive orders within the scope of their constitutional authority, the judiciary can declare such orders unlawful if they violate the Constitution or federal statutes. This power of judicial review allows the judiciary to safeguard the rule of law and ensure that the executive branch recognises the limits of its power.

The Supreme Court's ability to review executive orders was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this landmark case, the Court decided that an Act of Congress contrary to the Constitution could not stand. This set a precedent for the judiciary's power to review the actions of the executive branch and assess the validity of executive orders. The Court has since struck down several executive orders on the grounds of unconstitutionality or lack of presidential authority. For example, in Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Supreme Court invalidated one of Lincoln's wartime executive orders, holding that it violated the constitutional right to a jury trial in criminal cases.

Executive orders often come before federal courts in attempts to invalidate them or halt their enforcement. Courts may refuse to hear cases involving executive orders, particularly when the orders are issued under the president's inherent constitutional powers. Federal courts have held that executive orders not authorized by Congress are not considered "federal law". This distinction has led to the dismissal of several lawsuits on jurisdictional grounds.

The judiciary's review of executive orders is not limited to their constitutionality but also extends to the actions of administrative agencies. The judiciary assesses whether the president has exercised legislative power belonging solely to Congress. This review helps define the scope of presidential powers and ensures that executive orders do not exceed the president's authority or infringe upon the powers of other branches of government.

The ability to strike down state laws that violate the Constitution

The ability of the Supreme Court to strike down state laws that violate the Constitution is a critical aspect of the judicial system in the United States. This power, known as judicial review, allows the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act unconstitutional and is considered one of the Court's most important roles.

The concept of judicial review was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that an Act of Congress could not take precedence over the Constitution, thus setting a precedent for future judicial decisions. Over time, through various cases, the Supreme Court has asserted its authority to strike down state laws that conflict with the Constitution.

One notable example of the Supreme Court striking down state laws is the case of Strauder v. West Virginia in 1880. The Court ruled that a West Virginia law prohibiting individuals of African descent from serving on juries violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. This decision reaffirmed the Court's role in protecting civil rights and ensuring that state laws do not infringe upon constitutional guarantees.

Another case that exemplifies the Supreme Court's power to strike down state laws is Craig v. Missouri in 1830. In this instance, the Court found that a Missouri law authorising certificates payable in taxes, debts, or salaries to public officials violated the constitutional prohibition against states emitting "bills of credit". This case demonstrated the Court's commitment to upholding the constitutional framework and limiting state actions that contravene it.

The Supreme Court's ability to strike down state laws that violate the Constitution is a crucial mechanism for safeguarding individual liberties and maintaining a balanced system of government. By exercising judicial review, the Court ensures that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are protected and that state laws do not supersede or contradict those rights. This power serves as a check on the powers of state governments, reinforcing the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Explore related products

Trial Court & Appeal: False Arrest, Imprisonment, and Civil Rights Violations By L.A. County: Complaint, Discovery, Court Forms & Motions, Appellate Briefs, and Writs of Mandate

$15.95

The Law Officer’s Pocket Manual, 2023 Edition

$21.99 $42.99

HOA Constitutional Government

$15.95 $15.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

TORTURERS REPORT - 2: Torture and Human Rights Violations in Turkey

$16.99

Public International Law and Human Rights Violations by Private Military and Security Companies

$113.57 $119.99

The role of federal judges in protecting against legislative encroachment

Federal judges play a crucial role in safeguarding against legislative encroachment and upholding the Constitution. This role is primarily exercised through judicial review, a power established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, the Supreme Court asserted its authority to strike down any Legislative or Executive act that violates the Constitution. This power extends to reviewing the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress and assessing the validity of executive orders.

Federal judges, through judicial review, ensure that each branch of government recognizes its own power limits. They can invalidate presidential orders if Congress oversteps its bounds by authorizing such orders. For instance, the Supreme Court struck down Lincoln's wartime executive order in Ex parte Milligan (1866), upholding the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. Federal courts have also reviewed executive orders on public lands, military matters, economic crises, and civil rights, shaping the scope of presidential powers.

The independence of federal judges is crucial to their role. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, serving until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. This lifetime appointment, along with protected salaries, shields them from political pressures. Federal judges' independence allows them to focus solely on justice and ensures their impartiality in interpreting the law.

Additionally, federal judges handle cases that involve constitutional questions, federal law, and treaties, often referred to as "federal question" jurisdiction. They also preside over disputes between states, cases involving ambassadors, and those concerning ships on high seas (admiralty cases). The Supreme Court, as the highest court, is the final arbiter of justice and the interpreter of Constitutional rights.

In summary, federal judges protect against legislative encroachment by reviewing the constitutionality of laws, executive orders, and government actions. Their independence and judicial review powers ensure that the branches of government operate within their defined limits, safeguarding the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over civil suits arising under the Constitution

Article III, Section II of the US Constitution establishes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or its legal ability to hear a case. The Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, such as suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. It also has appellate jurisdiction, which means it can hear a case on appeal, on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over civil suits arising under the Constitution is limited to cases involving disputes between states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. These cases are tried before the Court, and the Supreme Court is the first and only court to hear them.

The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction allows it to review the decisions of lower courts in cases involving constitutional or federal law. Most of the cases heard by the Supreme Court are appeals from lower courts. Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari, which is a request for the Supreme Court to order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review.

The Supreme Court typically only hears cases that have been decided in an appropriate US Court of Appeals or the highest court in a given state, especially if a Constitutional issue was decided. The Court usually accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review each year. Four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case, and five must vote to grant a stay. The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear these cases and usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in federal Circuit Courts, or could have precedential value.

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the constitutional system of government. As the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Its power of judicial review ensures that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its power. It also protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions