Also known as: powers of judicial review · judicial review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The authority of federal courts to examine acts of Congress and the Executive and to declare them unconstitutional when they conflict with the Constitution. This power rests on the recognition that the Constitution is supreme law and that courts have the duty to interpret it in concrete cases.
Phuong Pham challenged a federal statute that imposed new licensing requirements on her import business. The district court examined whether the statute complied with the Commerce Clause. Finding that Congress had exceeded its enumerated powers, the court declared the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement against Pham.
Pilar Pena appealed an adverse ruling on her constitutional claim through a statutory avenue that Congress later repealed while her case was pending. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Because other avenues for federal judicial review of constitutional claims remained available, the repeal was upheld as a valid regulation of jurisdiction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paula Pierce, owner of a utility company, challenged a state commission order that banned promotional advertising. The court applied intermediate scrutiny to determine whether the order violated the First Amendment. After assessing the order's fit with the asserted state interests, the court held portions of the regulation unconstitutional.
Priscilla Parks, an environmental group member, sued a federal agency over a nuclear plant licensing rule. The court examined whether the agency had followed required procedures under the governing statute. Finding the procedures adequate, the court upheld the rule against the procedural challenge.
Patricia Patel and other voters sued state officials over a congressional map that allegedly diluted their votes. The court applied the Baker factors to decide whether the claim presented a political question. Determining that manageable standards existed, the court proceeded to adjudicate the equal-protection claim on the merits.
Philip Powell and fellow property owners contested a city's use of eminent domain to transfer land to a private developer. The court examined whether the taking served a public purpose under the Fifth Amendment. After applying the applicable standard, the court upheld the city's action as constitutional.
The power derives from the judiciary's duty to interpret the Constitution as supreme law when deciding cases. Courts must determine whether acts of Congress or the Executive conform to constitutional requirements.
Supporting sources
No. Congress may regulate or repeal specific avenues of Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot remove every possible federal judicial forum for constitutional claims.
Supporting sources
Courts decline to exercise judicial review when a claim presents a nonjusticiable political question under the Baker factors, such as a textually committed issue or lack of manageable standards.
Supporting sources
…plans for the renewal of the area involved,” § 207-2.0 (g) (1), may modify or disapprove the designation, and the owner may seek judicial review of the final designation decision. Thus far, 31 historic districts and over 400 individual landmarks have been finally designated,[^maj-12] and the process is a continuing one. Final…