Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21
Articles Blog

Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21

August 26, 2019

Hi. I’m Craig, and this is Crash Course Government
and Politics, and today we’re going to talk about the most important case the Supreme
Court ever decided ever. No, Stan, not Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company vs. Sawyer. Although,
that is one of my favorites. Loves me some sheet and tube. And no, it’s not Ex parte
Quirin. Although I do love me some inept Nazi spies and submarines. And no, it is not Miller
v. California. Get your mind out of the gutter Stan. We could play this game all day, but
this episode is about judicial review: the most important power of the Supreme Court
and where it came from. Don’t look so disappointed. This is cool! [Theme Music] When you think of the Supreme Court, the first
thing you think about, other than those comfy robes, is the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
The term for this awesome power, the main check that the court has on both the legislative
and executive branches, is judicial review. Technically, judicial review is the power
of the judiciary to examine and invalidate actions undertaken by the legislative and executive
branches of both the federal and state governments. It’s not the power to review lower court decisions.
That’s appellate jurisdiction. Most people think of judicial review as declaring laws
unconstitutional, and that definition is okay. The legal purist will quibble with you since
judicial review applies to more than just laws. Appellate courts, both state and federal,
engage in some form of judicial review, but we’re concerned here with the federal courts
especially the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has the power to review the following:
One, Congressional laws a.k.a. statutes! Statutes. Since judicial review is a form of appellate
activity, it involves upholding or affirming the validity of laws, or denying it, invalidating
the law in question. You might think that the Supreme Court does this a lot, but it
doesn’t and historically it almost never happened before the twentieth century. If the court
were always striking down congressional statutes, it would be hard for people to know which
laws to follow, and you’ll remember that one of the main things that courts do is create
expectations and predictability. For instance, you could predict that I would eventually
be punching this eagle! Another reason why they don’t invalidate laws
often is that if the Court frequently overruled Congress, the Court would seem too political
and people would stop trusting its judgment. If the Court has any power at all, it largely
stems from its prestige and reputation for being impartial and above politics. No one has
any problems with the Supreme Court decisions, at all. Two, the Court can also overturn state actions
which include the laws passed by state legislatures and the activities of state executive bureaus,
usually the police. The power to review and overturn states comes
from the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. Most of the time that the Supreme Court extends
civil rights, it comes out of a state action. A good example is Brown vs. Board of Education
where the Court struck down the idea of separate accommodations being equal in the context
of state public schools. Three, the Court can review the actions of
federal bureaucratic agencies. Although, we usually defer to the bureaucrat’s expertise
if the action is consistent with the intent of the legislature which the Court usually
finds it is. The Court almost never strikes down Congressional delegation of power to the
executive. Although, you might think that it should. The fourth area where the Court exercises
judicial review is over Presidential actions. The Court tends to defer to the President,
especially in the area of national security. The classic example of the Court overturning
executive action happened in U.S. vs. Nixon where the Justices denied the President’s
claim of executive privilege and forced him to turn over his recordings relating to the Watergate
scandal. More recently, the Court placed limits on the President’s authority to deny habeas
corpus to suspected terrorists in Rasul vs. Bush. So, the Supremacy Clause gives the Court the
authority to rule on state laws, but where exactly in the Constitution does the power
of judicial review come from? Trick question! It’s not there, go look ahead, look. I’ll
wait. See, not there. Wow, you went through that whole thing really quickly. Fast reader. The crazy thing is that the power of
judicial review comes from the Court itself. How?
Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The Supreme Court granted itself the power
of judicial review in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. You really should read the decision
because it’s a brilliant piece of politics. The upshot of the case was that Chief Justice
John Marshall ruled that the Court had the power to review, uphold, and strike down executive
actions pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, and in doing this, to strike down part of that
federal law. How he got there was pretty cool. So, Marbury was an official that President
John Adams, at the very end of his term, appointed to the position of Justice of the Peace. When
Marbury went to get his official commission certifying that he could start his job, James
Madison, who was Secretary of State, refused to give it to him. So, Marbury did what any
self-respecting petitioner would do, he went to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus
that would force Madison to give Marbury his job. This is what he was supposed to do according
to the Judiciary Act of 1789. What Marshall did was brilliant! He ruled
that yes, Marbury had a right to the commission but that the Supreme Court could not grant
his writ because the law directing them to do so was unconstitutional. This is brilliant
for two reasons. First, by the time the time the case came before the Court, Thomas Jefferson
was President. Those of you who remember Crash Course U.S. History will recall that that
less handsome man told you that Jefferson was a Democratic Republican while Adams,
Marbury, and even Marshall were all Federalists. By ruling against his own party, Marshall made
a decision that was favorable to Jefferson and thus, likely to be supported. The second move was even cooler. Marshall’s
ruling took the power of writs of mandamus away from the Court, making it look weaker,
while at the same time giving the Court the power to declare the law that had granted it the
mandamus power in the first place unconstitutional. So by weakening the Court in this instance,
like Daredevil going blind as a kid, Marshall made it much stronger for the future, like
Daredevil getting stronger in the future. Thanks, Thought Bubble! So that’s where judicial review comes from,
but that still leaves many questions. A big question is, why has this ruling stuck around
and hasn’t been overturned by other laws or later court decisions? Another question is, is
judicial review a violation of separation of powers? Some say that it’s judges making laws and thus an
anti-democratic usurpation of the legislature’s power. Let’s talk about this rulings longevity first.
Remember when I said last time that the Supreme Court rulings are binding in lower courts?
You don’t remember do ya? You were sleepin’. Wake up! Well, in general, Supreme Court precedents
are binding on future Supreme Courts too because of the principle of stare decisis, which is
Latin for “let the decision stand.” This doesn’t mean that future Supreme Court’s can never
overturn the decisions of prior Courts, it’s just that they try very hard to not do it. This idea of precedent is one way that judges
can be said to make laws. Appellate decisions are like common law in that they are binding
on future courts and constrain their decisions and because they don’t have to be grounded
in a specific statute. Other courts have to follow the higher court’s
interpretation of the law, and this interpretation has the effect of redefining the law without
actually rewriting the statute. On the other hand, appellate decisions are
technically not common law in that they are only binding on courts, not executive agencies
or legislatures. They are, however, signals to courts and legislatures about how courts
will rule in the future. Maybe an example will help. If you watch cop shows, or you
get arrested a lot, you probably know something about Miranda vs. Arizona which gave us the
Miranda Warning. You have the right to remain silent and all that stuff. Hopefully, you’ve
never heard that in person, though. But hey, we’re not here to judge. That’s what the courts
are for! Bahahahaha. Okay. In that case, the Supreme Court threw out
Miranda’s conviction because he hadn’t been told he had the right to remain silent. Without
knowing that he didn’t have to talk, he made a confession that got him convicted. The court
didn’t rewrite Arizona’s law but it sent a signal to Arizona’s law enforcement agencies,
and those in all the other states, that in the future courts would throw out the convictions
of defendants who hadn’t been informed of their rights. As a result, police procedures
changed in every state, and now the police are supposed to read the Miranda Rights to
anyone they arrest. So those are the very basics of judicial review.
We’ve probably raised as many questions as we’ve answered, but that’s why we’re making a
bunch of these videos! So we can teach it all! All of it! Anyway, the big concern for many is that cases
like Marbury vs. Madison, which give courts the power to strike down pieces of legislation,
overturn the judgment of the elected representatives that made the laws and violate the idea of
separation of powers. Well, that is a thorny issue, but it’s one
that we don’t have time to de-thorn today. For now, understand that judicial review is
how the courts work in practice and not necessarily a defined power granted by the Constitution.
Just remember, the executive and legislative branches also operate with a lot of implied
powers that aren’t explicitly granted to them in the Constitution. That’s because the governance
of the United States has evolved and changed over time to hopefully, suit the needs of
the country as they change over time. Thanks for watching. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced
in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from
Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the help of
these nice people who have the right to remain silent. Thanks for watching. You have the right to
stop watching.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Radiolab did a great podcast about this topic. Quite fascinating

  2. I seen, Judicial Review: Crash course Government and politics # 21.

  3. heyyy could you not be so fast and chaotic , it makes it hard to understand the main ideas. You can be fast about examples but try to reinforce the main most important ideas like what judicial review is and the mabrury vs Madison case etc thank you though

  4. Do people who criticize judicial review really think that Founding Fathers of the United States wanted the Constitution to be overturned by random laws?

  5. Ahh….. what? We're your pants on fire while you were doing the voice over? Why not talk even faster with your inaudible nasal voice so that absolutely no one can understand what is being said. TALK SLOWER!

  6. One Note on your video. Police do not have to read Miranda rights to every person they arrest they only have to read them Miranda rights if they're going to ask Guild seeking questions. Just thought you would like to know. Love your work though.

  7. cry me a river. 13 amendments after, the people love judicial review. consider it as ratification, also part of common, federal and state law

  8. People forget that political power requires legitimacy, and if the judiciary actions are more legitimate and close to the people, well it's the politicians fault, not the intellectual.

  9. I'm the only one who watching this just because teacher say to make a presentation of judicial review (yes… in France, we're studying this…) it will be cool if you can speak more slowly, thanks


    lol, chill, I believe that the Constitution needs to accommodate the need of the country without being confronted with Politcal deadlocks

  11. Not a fan of this clown consistently kicking, punching and knocking the American symbol, the Bald Eagle, around on these videos. Can he either come out and denounce America, or get something else to abuse on his desk? He is not funny. His high-pitched voice is annoying. I will not show these videos to my students.

  12. The judicial review process is just that: signaling to the legislature and executive branch that the courts will not defend that piece of legislation it find unconstitutional. With the enforcing power of the court gone, that law is toothless and unuseable regardless whether they remains on the books or not.

  13. The ability of courts to strike down statutes as unconstitutional is implied by the Constitution " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land…" If courts had no power to strike down laws not compatible with the constitution then there would be no means to do so.

  14. if you think it's too fast. try slowing down the video to .75 speed! it will mess up the quality, but it makes it a pretty perfect speed

  15. I know it's been a long minute since these came out, but I want to say that these videos are instrumental in helping me through my first law related class. As someone thinking about going to law school, the intimidation of a whole new field with a new set of skills that I have never encountered before is immense, and often makes me feel overwhelmed and out of my league with the vast info I'm told to learn and read. These videos break things down for me in such a way that I feel like I can begin to understand things in my own way, and for that I'm so grateful to Mr. Benzine and everyone at Crash Course. Keep being amazing guys; you're helping people go after their dreams <3

  16. This guys credibility is shot. I鈥檓 a Police Officer and when I heard him say that the police are supposed to read Miranda to 鈥渁nyone鈥 they arrest… that鈥檚 just not true, at all. You would know this if you understood Miranda and criminal procedure.

  17. Hei my NAME are Andreas Aasen gjermundnes 氓nd i vonder
    How kan you help with my blu american country how acount so to my acount so to acount kredit on my acount as payment for the day

  18. 0:53 0:59 1:00
    1:04 1:58 2:19
    2:44 3:06 3:19
    3:34 4:05 4:20
    5:14 5:26 6:15
    6:42 7:19 these helped me do my work

  19. I started watching this and was chuckling when my husband came out because I said this was the most clever thing the Supreme Court ever did. "Hey, let's make sure people notice we really do have power and never let them forget it!" lol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *