Judicial review — Civics, 14–17
Judicial review lets courts test whether public decisions follow higher law, such as a constitution or protected rights. It is a check on power, not a general licence for judges to replace every political choice.
Testing public power
Judicial review is a court’s examination of an act by a government, parliament or public body. The court asks whether the act stayed within legal powers and respected higher rules. If not, it may set the act aside or require it to be changed, depending on the system.
Why courts review decisions
Majorities and officials can act quickly, but they can also exceed their authority or harm a protected right. Judicial review grew from the problem of making power answer to law even after a decision was politically popular. It adds a legal check without making courts the government.
A review of a curfew
A minister orders everyone under 18 indoors after 8 p.m., claiming public safety. First, a court identifies the legal power used. Next, it checks whether the order has evidence, a proper purpose and a proportionate effect. If the power does not cover such a broad order, the court can cancel it.
Review is not rule by judges
A reasonable mistake is to think that a court cancelling a policy means judges have made the policy themselves. The court’s role is narrower: it checks legality, not every question of wisdom or preference. Political bodies usually remain free to choose another lawful policy.
Reading a court decision
When a court blocks a public measure, look for the exact reason: lack of legal power, unfair procedure, rights violation or disproportionality. Then ask what remains possible for lawmakers. This prevents headlines from turning a technical legal check into a claim that courts support one political side.
Keep exploring
Other languages
Loading MyLeoNes™…