Judicial review in the United States

judicial reviewstruck downreviewthe power to rule legislation unconstitutionalunconstitutionalcan invalidateconstitutionalityjudicial review in lawoverturnedreview the constitutionality
In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.wikipedia
112 Related Articles

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme CourtSupreme Court
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".
Under Marshall, the court established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison) and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states (notably, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).

Hylton v. United States

Hylton CaseHylton v. US
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".
The case is also significant for being the first case by the Supreme Court to rely on judicial review, later formally established by Marbury v. Madison (1803), to decide whether a statute of Congress was unconstitutional.

United States Congress

CongressU.S. CongressCongressional
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".
John Marshall, 4th chief justice of the Supreme Court, empowered the courts by establishing the principle of judicial review in law in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, effectively giving the Supreme Court a power to nullify congressional legislation.

North Carolina Supreme Court

Supreme Court of North CarolinaSupreme Courtstate supreme court
The first American decision to recognize the principle of judicial review was Bayard v. Singleton, decided in 1787 by the Supreme Court of North Carolina's predecessor.
That case, involving a dispute over property confiscated during the Revolutionary War, was the first in America to declare a legislative act unconstitutional thus establishing the principle of judicial review that was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison.

Article Three of the United States Constitution

Article IIIU.S. Const. art. IIIArticle III of the United States Constitution
Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.
Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

Ware v. Hylton

In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time struck down a state statute.
It is also notable for articulating the legal doctrine that would later be known as judicial review, whereby federal courts have the authority to settle conflicts of law.

Judicial review

judicial oversightreviewjudicially reviewed
While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

Presumption of constitutionality

presumedpresumed constitutionalpresumption of constitutional validity
Although judges usually adhered to this principle that a statute could only be deemed unconstitutional in case of a clear contradiction until the twentieth century, this presumption of constitutionality weakened somewhat during the twentieth century, as exemplified by the Supreme Court's famous footnote four in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), which suggested that statutes may be subjected to closer scrutiny in certain types of cases.
This view is in tension with the view of judicial review articulated in Marbury v. Madison, however.

Hollingsworth v. Virginia

In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798), the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because of the jurisdiction limitations of the Eleventh Amendment.
Hollingsworth was one of the earliest instances of judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

John Paul Stevens

Justice StevensStevensJohn P. Stevens
In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens reaffirmed this point in a concurring opinion: "[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"
DC v. Heller struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Federalist No. 78

Federalist 78
The most extensive discussion of judicial review was in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which clearly explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review.
78 describes the process of judicial review, in which the federal courts review statutes to determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution and its statutes.

Judiciary

judicialjudicial branchjudicial system
In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.

Statute

statutorystatutesAct
In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.

Treaty

treatiesinternational treatyinternational treaties
In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.

Regulation

regulationsregulatorygovernment regulation
In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.

State constitution (United States)

state constitutionstate constitutionsconstitution
In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.

Authority

authority figureauthoritiesauthoritative
While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v Madisonjudicial precedentjudicial review
In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional.

Article Six of the United States Constitution

Article VIArticle SixU.S. Const. art. VI
Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.

Constitutional Convention (United States)

Constitutional ConventionPhiladelphia ConventionConstitutional Convention of 1787
Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton, John Blair Jr. George Wythe, and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review.

Virginia

Commonwealth of VirginiaVAState of Virginia
Notable state cases involving judicial review include one in Virginia in 1782, Commonwealth v. Caton.

Alexander Hamilton

HamiltonHamiltonianA. Hamilton
The most extensive discussion of judicial review was in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which clearly explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton, John Blair Jr. George Wythe, and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review.

John Blair Jr.

John BlairJohn Blair, Jr.Blair
At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton, John Blair Jr. George Wythe, and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review.

George Wythe

WytheWythe, George
At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton, John Blair Jr. George Wythe, and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review.