The evolution of judicial review in constitutional law has been a dynamic process that has significantly shaped the legal landscape. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. This principle, which originated from Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, has since become an integral part of constitutional law.
The landmark Marbury v. Madison case established the Supreme Court’s power to declare laws unconstitutional, hence cementing its role as the final arbiter of constitutionality. Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that it was emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, thereby establishing judicial review as a fundamental aspect of American jurisprudence.
Since then, there have been several pivotal moments in its evolution. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 marked one such moment when Supreme Court declared that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in territories, igniting controversy over judicial activism versus restraint.
In 1954, Brown v Board of Education demonstrated how judicial review could be used as an instrument for social change by declaring racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This ruling overturned Plessy v Ferguson’s “separate but equal” doctrine and played a crucial role in advancing civil rights movement.
Another hallmark came with Roe v Wade decision in 1973 where Supreme Court used its power of judicial review to recognize a woman’s right to choose abortion under certain circumstances as protected by privacy rights implicit within Constitution’s due process clause.
More recently, Obergefell v Hodges (2015) expanded understanding and application of Fourteenth Amendment through guaranteeing same-sex couples right to marry nationwide – another instance demonstrating transformative potentiality inherent within concept of judicial review.
However, despite these milestones, debate continues about proper scope and exercise of this power – whether courts should strictly interpret Constitution or adapt it according to societal changes; if they should defer more often towards legislative intent or act vigorously against perceived constitutional violations.
Judicial review has also faced criticism for being undemocratic, as it gives unelected judges significant power to overrule decisions made by elected representatives of people. Yet, supporters argue that it serves as a crucial check on legislative and executive powers, protecting individual rights against potential governmental abuses.
The evolution of judicial review in constitutional law is an ongoing process influenced by societal changes, legal theories, and political ideologies. It remains a delicate balance between safeguarding the Constitution’s principles and ensuring its relevance in contemporary society. Its future trajectory will likely continue to be shaped by these tensions – reflecting the dynamic nature of constitutional law itself.
