Viewpoint Wiki - All Viewpoints, No Gatekeepers

The concept of judicial review-the power of courts to invalidate laws or actions deemed unconstitutional-has deep roots in both anglo-american legal tradition and american constitutional development. This article traces the origins and evolution of judicial review from its early english precedents through landmark u.s. supreme court cases that expanded and refined its scope. For a broader overview, see Judicial Review. This history also intersects with debates over Constitutional Interpretation - Living Constitution Viewpoint, particularly regarding how courts balance textural fidelity with evolving societal norms.

This article explores the origins and evolution of judicial review in american jurisprudence. It examines key historical moments, from early english influences to landmark supreme court decisions, that shaped this foundational principle. The discussion is also contextualized within broader debates about Constitutional Interpretation - Living Constitution Viewpoint, examining how courts have balanced original intent with adapting to societal changes.

Judicial review in the united states was significantly shaped by the english legal system, particularly the 1610 *Dr. Bonham's Case* (*Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians*), where Chief Justice Edward Coke of the Court of Common Pleas asserted that parliamentary acts repugnant to common right and reason were void under common law, an early precedent for judicial authority over legislation. In the early republic, the judiciary act of 1789 established the federal court structure, including the supreme court's original and appellate jurisdiction, laying groundwork for judicial oversight.

The foundational case in american jurisprudence was *marbury v. madison* (1803), where chief justice john marshall ruled that william marbury's commission as a justice of the peace had been improperly withheld by james madison but declared unconstitutional the provision of the judiciary act that would have granted the court jurisdiction over such cases. Marshall's assertion that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” cemented the principle of judicial review. This decision was anticipated by alexander hamilton in *federalist no. 78* (1788), which argued for an independent judiciary capable of checking legislative overreach.

The contours of judicial review evolved through high-profile cases addressing contentious social issues. In *dred scott v. sandford* (1857), the taney court ruled that black individuals could not be american citizens and upheld slavery's expansion into territories, illustrating how judicial review could be applied to uphold contested legislative frameworks. The “separate but equal” doctrine from *plessy v. ferguson* (1896) similarly legitimized segregation until it was overturned by *brown v. board of education* (1954), which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.

The warren court (1953-1969) expanded civil rights and liberties through judicial review, notably in cases involving desegregation, fair trials (*gideon v. wainwright*, 1963), and reproductive autonomy (*griswold v. connecticut*, 1965). *baker v. carr* (1962) introduced the “one person, one vote” principle, reshaping electoral district boundaries under the fourteenth amendment.

The rehnquist court (1986-2005) emphasized federalism and states' rights, often limiting congressional authority in areas like environmental regulation (*new york v. united states*, 1992). The court's role in electoral disputes was highlighted by *bush v. gore* (2000), which resolved the contested presidential election on equal protection grounds but remains controversial for its narrow decision to halt florida's recount.

Recent cases include *obergefell v. hodges* (2015), which recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, and *dobbs v. jackson women's health organization* (2022), which overturned *roe v. wade* (1973) and returned abortion regulation to the states.

Some historians argue that *marbury v. madison* was not the first explicit assertion of judicial review but rather a consolidation of existing practices, such as those seen in english common law. See judicial-review-origins-controversy. The warren court's expansion of constitutional protections is debated: some view it as a necessary evolution of rights, while others contend it overstepped into legislative and executive domains. See constitutional-interpretation-living-constitution-viewpoint-debate.

* Judicial Review * Constitutional Interpretation - Living Constitution Viewpoint * judiciary-act-of-1789-regulatory-response-debate

1. Maeva Marcus, “The Documented Origins of the Judiciary Act,” *William and Mary Quarterly*, 3rd ser., vol. 42, no. 1 (1985), 55-74. 2. Robert K. Goldsmith, *Marbury v. Madison: A Brief History with Explanatory Notes* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001). 3. Mark Tushnet, *Judicial Review: An Institutional Perspective* (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006).