Glossary

Judicial review

The power of courts to strike down laws and government actions that conflict with the Constitution.

Also called: constitutional review

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine whether a statute, regulation or executive action is consistent with the Constitution and, if it is not, to refuse to enforce it. In the United States any court can exercise it, though the Supreme Court has the final word on federal questions.

The Constitution does not mention judicial review by name. Alexander Hamilton defended the idea in Federalist No. 78, and Chief Justice John Marshall established it in Marbury v. Madison (1803), reasoning that the Constitution is supreme law and that it is the duty of the courts to say what the law is. Courts generally presume laws are valid and try to read them in ways that avoid constitutional problems.

Judicial review is a key part of checks and balances, but its proper scope is a lasting political argument. Critics on both left and right have at different times accused the courts of judicial activism when they strike down laws they favor, while praising courts that strike down laws they oppose. Advocates of judicial restraint urge deference to elected branches except in clear cases.

Last reviewed November 8, 2026

In the index now

Related terms

Marbury v. Madison The 1803 Supreme Court decision that established the principle of judicial review of federal law. Separation of powers The constitutional division of government into legislative, executive and judicial branches, each with its own distinct powers. Judicial activism A critical label for judging that appears to be driven by the judge's policy preferences rather than the law. Judicial restraint A judicial philosophy that courts should defer to elected branches and strike down laws only when they clearly violate the Constitution. Checks and balances The constitutional design giving each branch of government ways to limit the others, so that no branch dominates.