Judicial Review

Lesson plan.

icon for all high school resources

If Marbury was right, then why didn't he get the writ? This lesson explores the case that established the power the Supreme Court has today. Students will learn how the decision in Marbury v. Madison influenced the structure of the third branch, and how the Court's use of judicial review can be interpreted as activism or restraint. 

But wait, there's more! Looking for a quick and fun way to check student understanding? Use our Kahoot!  in English or in Spanish after students complete this lesson. 

iCivics en español! Student and class materials for this lesson are available in Spanish.

Pedagogy Tags

ELA-literacy Icon

Teacher Resources

Get access to lesson plans, teacher guides, student handouts, and other teaching materials.

Kahoot Icon

  • Judicial Review_Student Docs.pdf
  • Judicial Review_Teacher Guide.pdf
  • Spanish_Judicial Review_Student Docs.pdf

I find the materials so engaging, relevant, and easy to understand – I now use iCivics as a central resource, and use the textbook as a supplemental tool. The games are invaluable for applying the concepts we learn in class. My seniors LOVE iCivics.

Lynna Landry , AP US History & Government / Economics Teacher and Department Chair, California

Related Resources

Appellate courts: let's take it up.

icon for all middle school resources

Argument Wars

Roleplay Icon

Argument Wars Extension Pack

Google Slides Icon

Branches of Power

Court quest, court quest extension pack, double take: the dual court system, in the courts, interpreting the constitution, james bond in a honda (mock trial), see how it all fits together.

Article III, Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

One key feature of the federal judicial power is the power of judicial review, the authority of federal courts to declare that federal or state government actions violate the Constitution. While judicial review is now one of the distinctive features of United States constitutional law, the Constitution does not expressly grant federal courts power to declare government actions unconstitutional. However, the historical record from the Founding and the early years of the Republic suggests that those who framed and ratified the Constitution were aware of judicial review, and that some favored granting courts that power.

The concept of judicial review was already established at the time of the Founding. The Privy Council had employed a limited form of judicial review to review colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters. 1 Footnote Julius Goebel , Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801, History of the Supreme Court of the United States 60–95 (1971) . There were several instances known to the Framers of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions. 2 Footnote Id. at 96–142 . Practically all of the Framers who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation. 3 Footnote 1 Max Farrand , The Framing of the Constitution of the United States 97–98 (1913) (Gerry), 109 (King); 2 Max Farrand , The Framing of the Constitution of the United States 28 (1913) (Morris and perhaps Sherman), 73 (Wilson), 75 (Strong, but the remark is ambiguous), 76 (Martin), 78 (Mason), 79 (Gorham, but ambiguous), 80 (Rutledge), 92–93 (Madison), 248 (Pinckney), 299 (Morris), 376 (Williamson), 391 (Wilson), 428 (Rutledge), 430 (Madison), 440 (Madison), 589 (Madison); 3 Max Farrand , The Framing of the Constitution of the United States 220 (1913) (Martin). The only expressed opposition to judicial review came from Mercer with a weak seconding from Dickinson. “Mr. Mercer . . . disapproved of the Doctrine that the Judges as expositors of the Constitution should have authority to declare a law void. He thought laws ought to be well and cautiously made, and then to be uncontroulable.” 2 Max Farrand , The Framing of the Constitution of the United States 298 (1913) . “Mr. Dickinson was strongly impressed with the remark of Mr. Mercer as to the power of the Judges to set aside the law. He thought no such power ought to exist. He was at the same time at a loss what expedient to substitute.” Id. at 299 . Of course, the debates in the Convention were not available when the state ratifying conventions acted, so that the delegates could not have known these views about judicial review in order to have acted knowingly about them. Views, were, however, expressed in the ratifying conventions recognizing judicial review, some of them being uttered by Framers. 2 J. Elliot , Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 131 (1836) (Samuel Adams, Massachusetts), 196–97 (Ellsworth, Connecticut), 348, 362 (Hamilton, New York): 445–46. 478 (Wilson, Pennsylvania); 3 J. Elliot , Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 324–25, 539 , 541 (1836) (Henry, Virginia), 480 (Mason, Virginia), 532 (Madison, Virginia), 570 (Randolph, Virginia); 4 J. Elliot , Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 71 (1836) (Steele, North Carolina), 156–57 (Davie, North Carolina). In the Virginia convention, Chief Justice John Marshall observed if Congress “were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judge as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard . . . They would declare it void . . . . To what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement on the constitution, if you will not give the power to the judiciary? There is no other body that can afford such a protection.” 3 id. at 553–54 . Both Madison and Hamilton similarly asserted the power of judicial review in their campaign for ratification. The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison); id. Nos. 78, 81 (Alexander Hamilton). The persons supporting or at least indicating they thought judicial review existed did not constitute a majority of the Framers, but the absence of controverting statements, with the exception of the Mercer-Dickinson comments, indicates at least acquiescence if not agreements by the other Framers. Alexander Hamilton argued in favor of the doctrine in the Federalist Papers . 4 Footnote The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton) ( “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” ). In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress explicitly provided for the exercise of the power, 5 Footnote In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73 , Congress chose not to vest “federal question” jurisdiction in the federal courts but to leave to the state courts the enforcement of claims under the Constitution and federal laws. In Section 25 of the Judiciary Act ( 1 Stat. 85 ), Congress provided for review by the Supreme Court of final judgments in state courts (1) “where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity;” (2) “where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity;” or (3) “where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption specially set up or claimed” thereunder. § 25, 1 Stat. 73 , 85–86 . and in other legislative debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent. 6 Footnote See in particular the debate on the President’s removal powers, discussed in ArtII.S2.C2.3.15.1 Overview of Removal of Executive Branch Officers with statements excerpted in R. Berger , Congress v. The Supreme Court 144–150 (1969) . Debates on the Alien and Sedition Acts and on the power of Congress to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801 similarly saw recognition of judicial review of acts of Congress. C. Warren , in id. at 107–12 4. Early Supreme Court Justices seem to have assumed the existence of judicial review. 7 Footnote Thus, the Justices on circuit refused to administer a pension act on the grounds of its unconstitutionally, see Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792) , and ArtIII.S1.4.4 Inherent Power to Issue Judgments. Chief Justice Jay and other Justices wrote that the imposition of circuit duty on Justices was unconstitutional, although they never mailed the letter in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796) , a feigned suit, the constitutionality of a federal law was argued before the Justices and upheld on the merits, in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796) , a state law was overturned, and dicta in several opinions asserted the principle. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 399 (1798) (Justice Iredell), and several Justices on circuit, quoted in Julius Goebel, supra note 1, at 589–592.

The Supreme Court first formally embraced the doctrine of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison . 8 Footnote 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803) . Since Marbury , judicial review has become a core feature of American constitutional law. 9 Footnote See ArtIII.S1.3 Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. While the doctrine is well established, some legal commentators have criticized judicial review, and some who support it debate its doctrinal basis or how it should be applied. 10 Footnote See, e.g. , G. Gunther , Constitutional Law 1–38 (12th ed. 1991) ; For expositions on the legitimacy of judicial review, see L. Hand , The Bill of Rights (1958) ; H. Wechsler , Principles, Politics, and Fundamental Law: Selected Essays 1–15 (1961) ; A. Bickel , The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics 1–33 (1962) ; R. Berger , Congress v. The Supreme Court (1969) . For an extensive historical attack on judicial review, see 2 W. Crosskey , Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States chs. 27–29 (1953) , with which compare Hart, Book Review , 67 Harv. L. Rev. 1456 (1954) . A brief review of the ongoing debate on the subject, in a work that now is a classic attack on judicial review, is Westin, Introduction: Charles Beard and American Debate Over Judicial Review , 1790–1961 , in C. Beard , The Supreme Court and the Constitution 1–34 (1962 reissue of 1938 ed.) , and bibliography at 133–149. While much of the debate focuses on judicial review of acts of Congress, the similar review of state acts has occasioned much controversy as well.



  1. Judicial Review

    judicial review assignment

  2. Petition Judicial Review With Example

    judicial review assignment

  3. Judicial Review

    judicial review assignment

  4. Judicial Review Exam Notes (Complete)

    judicial review assignment

  5. Judicial Review

    judicial review assignment

  6. Judicial Review Essay

    judicial review assignment


  1. Judicial Review and the Teachers Strike with Khemraj Ramjattan and Dr Vincent Adams

  2. Editorial workflow in OJS 3.3. Module 5: Assigning a reviewer

  3. Introduction to Judicial Review series

  4. Lecture on Judicial Review

  5. Judgment Walkthrough Part 1 No Commentary

  6. Committee on Judicial Review Meeting #2 (Choice of Forum for Judicial Review of Agency Rules)


  1. Judicial Review Lesson Plan

    This lesson explores the case that established the power the Supreme Court has today. Students will learn how the decision in Marbury v. Madison influenced the structure of the third branch, and how the Court's use of judicial review can be interpreted as activism or restraint. But wait, there's more!

  2. 4.02 Judicial Review

    4.02 Judicial Review 4.02 judicial review the role of appointed judges in government is that while appointed judges are elected the executive branch of. ... 2.07 US GOV V23 Assignment Template; 04.02 Judicial Review; 03 02 worksheet; Related documents. Public policy template; S138-Aeris Janelle Isla - A National Bank Hamilton vs. Jefferson ...

  3. 04.02 judicial Review Assignment by Adriana Martinez on Prezi

    Updated July 18, 2014. Transcript. Answer:" Judicial Review is the power for federal judges to review and cancel laws or acts of government if they are founded to be unconstitutional .This has given the supreme court the power to undo public policy. Also this ability has given the Judicial branch more power in the system of checks and balances".

  4. Judicial review

    judicial review, power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution.Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. The institution of judicial review in this sense depends upon the existence of a ...

  5. judicial review

    judicial review. Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the U.S. system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary . Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government ...

  6. PDF GUIDE SERIES An introduction to Judicial Review

    Judicial review is a way of challenging the decisions, acts (and sometimes the failure to act) of a public body, because it has not acted lawfully. It is a court procedure, brought in a branch of the High Court known as the Administrative Court, or in relation to certain types of case,1 in the Upper

  7. An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action

    The U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and any inferior courts established by Congress, limiting the power of federal courts to the context of "cases" or "controversies.". Pursuant to constitutional and statutory requirements, courts may hear challenges to the actions of federal agencies in certain situations.

  8. Application, Grounds and Remedies for Judicial Review

    Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that applications for mandatory, prohibiting and quashing orders must be made by an application for judicial review. Injunctions can also be granted under section 31 (2) in judicial review cases. Section 31 (3) requires that permissions is needed for every application of judicial review.

  9. Judicial Review Lecture

    Part 54.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules defined judicial review and states: (2) In this Section-. (a) a claim for 'judicial review' means a claim to review the lawfulness of-. (i) an enactment; or. (ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.

  10. 04.02 Judicial Review Flashcards

    What is Judicial Review? the power to review and cancel laws or acts of government if determined to be unconstitutional. Why does the Senate care who is nominated for Judicial Review? whoever is chosen to serve as a federal judge is not only that they serve for life, but more importantly because they have the power judicial review.

  11. Judicial review

    Principle of Procedure established by law: Judicial Review is governed by the principle of "Procedure established by law" as given in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The law has to pass the test of constitutionality if it qualifies it can be made a law. On the contrary, the court can declare it null and void.

  12. judicial review assignment

    essay title: judicial review formative essay word count: 896 adele can challenge her expulsion through judicial review. there are different grounds in which. ... judicial review assignment. Module: Constitutional and Administrative Law (LW1120) 331 Documents. Students shared 331 documents in this course.

  13. Judicial Review of Administrative Action

    Studying Judicial Review of Administrative Action LAWS702 at Auckland University of Technology? On Studocu you will find 19 mandatory assignments, 16 lecture notes, ... Judicial review assignment 2018 issues and authorities. 10 pages 2018/2019 100% (5) 2018/2019 100% (5) Save. JR - Essay requirement. 5 pages 2016/2017 100% (1) 2016/2017 100% (1 ...

  14. Historical Background of Judicial Review

    A brief review of the ongoing debate on the subject, in a work that now is a classic attack on judicial review, is Westin, Introduction: Charles Beard and American Debate Over Judicial Review, 1790-1961, in C. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution 1-34 (1962 reissue of 1938 ed.), and bibliography at 133-149. While much of the ...

  15. 4.02 judicial review Flashcards

    Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, remedy and more.

  16. High School Assignment

    Judicial Review and Supremacy Clause Assignment and Topic Overview. The concepts of judicial review and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution) are incredibly ...


    JUDICIAL REVIEW powers by the government whether it be the legislature or the executive or any other authority,be conditioned by the Constitution and the law.' The power of judicial review as an integral part of our 'constitutional system…the power of judicial review…is unquestionably….part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

  18. 4.02 Judicial Review

    4.02 Judicial Review - 4.02 assignment. 4.02 assignment. Subject. U.S. History. 999+ Documents. Students shared 3695 documents in this course. Level Standard. School Yukon Hs - Yukon-OK. Academic year: 2023/2024. Uploaded by: Anonymous Student. This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.

  19. (PDF) The Politics of Judicial Review

    2005] The Politics of Judicial Review 263. deny the constraining influence of law. 34 Within political science, the notion. of ideologically freewheeling judges is challenged by "neo ...

  20. RJIs & Assignments

    A. FILING AN RJI 1) RJIs Generally A case is assigned to a Justice by means of the Request for Judicial Intervention (fee $ 95). Certain applications do not require that a fee be paid, though an RJI form must be filed, and these applications will be assigned to an Ex Parte Justice, not to an Individual Assignment Justice for all purposes. This is explained further hereafter.

  21. Judicial review under the Indian Constitution

    Introduction . Judicial review is the process of examining the constitutionality of any law passed by the Parliament. If the law passed is found to be violating or infringing the provisions of the Indian Constitution, then either the high courts or the Supreme Court of India can declare them as void thereby not allowing them to be enforceable.John Marshall, an American politician and lawyer ...

  22. Historical Background on Judicial Review

    A brief review of the ongoing debate on the subject, in a work that now is a classic attack on judicial review, is Westin, Introduction: Charles Beard and American Debate Over Judicial Review, 1790-1961, in C. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution 1-34 (1962 reissue of 1938 ed.), and bibliography at 133-149. While much of the ...

  23. Judicial Assignments

    Some are sending weekly and others are not yet releasing assignments. Social Law will update this page to the best of our ability as we receive the judicial assignments from each court. SJC and Appeals Sitting List. SJC Full Court. SJC Single Justice. Appeals Full Court. Appeals Court Single Justice. District Court.