Skip to Content

What are the limitations on the power of judicial review?


Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine and invalidate actions of the legislative and executive branches if they are deemed to be unconstitutional. This power allows the courts to act as a check on the other branches of government and ensure that they are acting within the confines of the constitution. However, judicial review is not an absolute power, and there are certain limitations on how far it can extend. Some of the key limitations include justiciability requirements, the political question doctrine, and legislative and executive pushback against court rulings. Understanding these limitations provides insight into the careful balance of power between the branches of government in the United States’ constitutional system.

Justiciability Requirements

For a case to be eligible for judicial review, it must meet certain justiciability requirements. These requirements stem from the nature of the judicial function and ensure that courts are only deciding actual legal controversies within their realm of expertise. Some of the key requirements include:

  • Standing – The plaintiff bringing the case must have suffered an actual injury that can be remedied by the court.
  • Ripeness – The issue must be ready for judicial review and not premature or speculative.
  • Mootness – An actual ongoing controversy must exist, rather than an issue that has already been resolved or no longer holds significance.

If a case fails to meet any of these requirements, the courts will generally decline to hear it on the grounds that it is not justiciable. This prevents the judiciary from issuing advisory opinions or ruling on hypothetical scenarios. In this way, justiciability requirements significantly limit the types of issues on which courts can conduct judicial review.

The Political Question Doctrine

The political question doctrine is another limitation under which courts will decline to rule on certain issues they deem to fall outside of their purview. Under this doctrine, if a case presents a political question where there is:

  • A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of an issue to a coordinate political branch; or
  • A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;

Then the court will dismiss the case as nonjusticiable. Questions of foreign policy, presidential war powers, impeachment, and constitutional amendments have all been deemed political questions unsuitable for judicial determination. The courts’ restraint in these areas exemplifies how judicial review has its boundaries in ultimate deference to the authority of the elected branches of government.

Legislative and Executive Pushback

The legislative and executive branches have means by which they can respond to and undermine judicial decisions limiting their power. Congress can propose constitutional amendments to effectively override Supreme Court rulings, as they did following the Lochner era of pro-business rulings. Through new appointments, Congress can also gradually shift the ideological balance of the courts to align more with their preferences.

On the executive side, presidents can issue pardons and commutations declining to enforce court judgments against individuals. Presidents can also simply ignore rulings they see as incorrect or unconstitutional. While risky, declining to enforce a ruling substantially limits its real-world impact. Franklin Roosevelt even considered expanding the size of the Supreme Court in order to stack it with judges more amenable to his New Deal policies after facing several unfavorable rulings. The specter of these types of responses from the elected branches can serve as a further restraint on the judiciary’s exercise of the power of judicial review.

Conclusion

While judicial review empowers the judiciary to act as an independent check on the constitutional validity of legislative and executive actions, it is subject to a number of significant limitations. Justiciability requirements, the political question doctrine, and pushback from the elected branches all circumscribe the range of issues on which courts can effectively rule. Given these limitations, the judiciary must act with prudence and restraint in exercising its power of review. Ultimately, in the complex separation of powers framework created by the Constitution, judicial review allows the courts to play a balancing rather than domineering role in resolving disputes between the branches while respecting their respective spheres of authority. Understanding these nuances provides critical insight into the true scope and limits of the American judiciary’s power.