24

Congress can't override substantive rules of constitutional law Marbury v. Madison is a binding interpretation of what the U.S. Constitution permits or denies, and in substance, this law seeks to change that interpretation of the scope of the judicial power, so that interpretation may not be overruled except via a Constitutional amendment. Neither the ...


8

Marbury V. Madison did not establish judicial review. It was simply the first case where that power was used. It was clearly spelled out in The Federalist #78 that this power would exist in the new constitution, and those who voted to ratify it understood, or should have understood, that it would exist. All that Marbury V. Madison decided was that the ...


8

Your question: "How blatant the circumvention of the Constitution has to be for SCOTUS to act?" indicates some confusion about the big picture of how contesting the constitutionality of a law works. SCOTUS doesn't proactively do anything. The Supreme Court cannot simply review a law that has been enacted and say it is unconstitutional of its own accord, ...


8

Judicial review As always, Inigo Montoya, is correct - declaring a law unconstitutional is not judicial review in Australia, although it may be a consequence of a judicial review. Judicial review is the power of the courts (the judiciary) to review decisions of executive government e.g. a decision of a council in a development application or the decision of ...


7

"Precedent" refers to a finding of what the law is. A jury only finds facts, and operates (supposedly) within the meaning of the law as already established. All the jury reports is "yes" and "no" to questions of fact (with some reference to existing law): they do not report, at least in any official way "we interpret the law as saying X". So it would be ...


6

Compliance with the Dutch Constitution is evaluated pre-enactment, rather than post-enactment as indicated below. The Dutch Constitution prohibits the courts from reviewing the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament. They are however obliged to assess whether statutory regulations are compatible with international treaties. The ban on ...


5

No This particular attempt at jurisdiction stripping would fail as it attacks the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. However, providing it leaves original jurisdiction alone, Congress ...


4

The 3rd amendment has two distinct parts: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner This is an absolute prohibition and any law which attempted to coerce the owner would be unconstitutional. And the second part: No Soldier shall, ... be quartered in any house ... in time of war, but in a manner to ...


3

Yes and no. Legally, no: Generally speaking, Marbury holds that it is the constitutional duty of the courts to interpret the law, including the constitution: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws ...


3

If a law is struck-down as unconstitutional, but all the precedent used to find it unconstitutional gets reversed; what becomes of the law? In U.S. law, the law has effect again, unless it has been amended or repealed in the meantime. Is it totally dead, needing be passed anew? In the U.S., no. It is not totally dead. It is merely dormant. It stays ...


3

This is a bit sideways of your question, but the Supreme Court has held that "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) later cited in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634-635 (1996).


3

The earliest I know of is Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 5 (N.C. Super. 1787), which dealt with a North Carolina statute that confiscated land held by British subjects and required the courts to dismiss any lawsuits attempting to reclaim confiscated property. The North Carolina Superior Court held that because the state constitution conferred a right to a jury ...


2

Were such a law enacted, at least part of it would be struck down as violating the 3rd Amendment, namely the "at any time" part of the law. The only possibility for quartering soldiers would be in time of war. Additionally, the law would violate the Due Process clauses (of the 5th and 14th Amendments). While we're uncertain what the exact scope of "due ...


2

Under the relevant federal law, FERPA (34 CFR Part 99.31(a)(2)), it is allowed without your consent if The disclosure is, subject to the requirements of §99.34, to officials of another school, school system, or institution of postsecondary education where the student seeks or intends to enroll, or where the student is already enrolled so long as the ...


2

It cannot until the complaint has been ruled on. Examples of specific complaints can be found online only if the author(s) publishes them after the Court has ruled on it, or the court issues an order based on the complaint. If you want Orders specific to Judge Kavanaugh, they'll appear either here or here.


2

The Apportionment Act of 1792 allocating members of the House of Representatives is an example. After it was passed by Congress, President Washington determined that it violated the Constitution in two ways: it gave different states different ratios of population to members of the House, and it gave eight states more than one member of Congress per thirty ...


2

The “apparently formalistic procedural reasons” is the arbitrary requirement that applications be lodged “promptly” If the conduct the subject of the review is clearly illegal and no third parties would be adversely affected by bring it to an end, the court is likely to waive the “promptly” requirement.


2

Presumably the fear was that a law or policy governing the public authority might say one thing, but if an official assured a member of the public to the contrary, then the MoP could then require the authority to comply with the official assurances instead of their policy. Thus the official could unilaterally force the public authority to change its ...


2

Judicial review involves examining government conduct Judicial review refers to a court's ability to review a decision made under administrative law by the administrative branch of government or to rule that a statute passed by the legislature is invalid because it conflicts with a higher law - usually that the law is unconstitutional but it can also be ...


2

The author, perhaps unsurprisingly for a law professor, is more or less saying, 'Do your homework'. One might have the opinion that judicial review is just the unelected branch of government overriding decisions of the executive (or their officials). If so, that's rather undemocratic. If you believe that judges are merely applying their preconceived opinions ...


2

Several of the answers beg the question that was asked, as least with respect to the question of whether or not the courts can making a binding declaration that laws are unconstitutional. Judicial review as we know it was established in Marbury v. Madison. If you accept Marbury, then it and everything after it is "binding". But prior to Marbury it was an ...


2

Wednesbury unreasonableness has two aspects Lord Greene MR identified two types of unreasonableness: a decision that took into account irrelevant considerations or did not take into account relevant considerations; and where a discretionary decision was "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it" – and that required ...


1

Certain decisions can be overturned by Congress by a simple majority, as long as the president agrees and signs the bill into law. That is, Congress passes a modified law which changes the problem that existed in the previous law. They've done this many times. In the case of roe v Wade, there is something more fundamental involved, namely constitutionally ...


1

Based on cases cited in one of your links, it appears that you refer to jurisdictions in the U.S. Is there a mechanism for asking a Judge to review facts and circumstances without going to trial? If so what is it called? Yes. A case may be decided through motions for summary judgment or summary disposition. In such motions, the moving party advances ...


1

When the Supreme Court decides a law is unconstitutional that is the precedent. Even if the legal basis on which the justices made their decision changes the decision is still valid. Only the Supreme Court itself could reverse that decision and it is unlikely they would ever have an opportunity to do so - there is no future for litigants who try to argue on ...


1

[W]hy isn't there an official system to record it? Existing Systems Sometimes there is. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code and many of the other Uniform and Model Act that are adopted by state legislatures has an official commentary which is often adopted officially by the legislature along with the Act. It isn't uncommon for legislation to include ...


1

Normally a motion under Rule 59 of U.S. civil rules based upon the federal rules of civil procedure can be brought (if brought in time) to ask a court to reconsider a final order that resolves an action made by the court as well as a trial verdict. Even if the MSJ wasn't ruled upon, the Court had to issue some order to dismiss the case and that could be ...


1

Yes, with the caveat that one should always check local rules in whatever jurisdiction one is operating in. I can't think of a reason right now (although I may be overlooking some things) that a judge would ignore a motion for summary judgment, yet dismiss the case for another reason without dismissing it for another reason prior to the motion for summary ...


1

The legal standard of legitimate government interest is a surprisingly high bar because it's very subjective and courts traditionally preume that all legislative acts are rational, placing the burden on the plaintiff to show that it's not. Essentially, the rational basis test only asks: Whether or not the government has the authority to regulate the matter ...


1

If there is no legitimate government interest behind a policy enacted by, say, a state legislature, that doesn't necessarily mean they were pursuing a government interest and that interest was illegitimate. It means the policy they were pursuing was not found to be what is considered a legitimate government interest. It is not true that all government ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible