U S vs UK judicial review
Judicial Review: US vs UK
1. Judicial Review Defined
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine and invalidate legislative and executive actions that are inconsistent with a higher authority, such as a constitution or legal principles.
2. Key Differences Between US and UK Judicial Review
| Aspect | United States | United Kingdom |
|---|---|---|
| Source of judicial review | Constitutionally entrenched (Article III, Marbury v. Madison) | Not constitutionally entrenched; based on common law principles |
| Scope | Courts can invalidate laws conflicting with the Constitution | Parliamentary sovereignty limits invalidation of primary legislation |
| Constitutional supremacy | Constitution is supreme law | Parliament is supreme, and courts cannot overturn Acts of Parliament |
| Basis for review | Constitutionality of laws and executive acts | Legality, rationality, procedural fairness (public law grounds) |
| Types of review | Substantive and procedural constitutional review | Administrative review focused on legality and reasonableness |
| Effect of review | Striking down unconstitutional laws | Declaring government actions unlawful, but not overturning Acts of Parliament |
Detailed Case Law Analysis
United States Judicial Review Cases
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Facts:
William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the delivery of his commission as a justice of the peace.
Issue:
Whether the Supreme Court had authority to review laws passed by Congress.
Holding:
The Court, under Chief Justice Marshall, established the principle of judicial review, ruling that the Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Explanation:
This foundational case gave US courts the power to invalidate laws conflicting with the Constitution, establishing constitutional supremacy.
2. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Facts:
Challenged racial segregation in public schools.
Issue:
Whether state laws establishing segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Holding:
The Court ruled segregation unconstitutional, overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine.
Explanation:
Shows substantive judicial review protecting fundamental rights and enforcing constitutional equality.
3. United States v. Lopez (1995)
Facts:
Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act; Lopez was charged for carrying a gun on school property.
Issue:
Did Congress exceed its commerce power under the Constitution?
Holding:
The Court struck down the law, holding Congress exceeded its authority.
Explanation:
Limits the scope of federal power and reinforces judicial check on legislative overreach.
United Kingdom Judicial Review Cases
4. Entick v. Carrington (1765)
Facts:
Government agents broke into Entick’s home under a warrant issued by a secretary of state.
Issue:
Whether the warrant was lawful.
Holding:
Court ruled the warrant unlawful; government actions must have legal authority.
Explanation:
An early case affirming that state actions must be authorized by law — foundation of legality principle in UK judicial review.
5. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) — “GCHQ Case”
Facts:
Government banned trade union membership at GCHQ without consultation.
Issue:
Whether the government’s action was subject to judicial review.
Holding:
Court held the action was reviewable on grounds of procedural fairness but upheld the government’s prerogative in this case.
Explanation:
Established that executive prerogative powers are subject to review for legality and fairness.
6. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001)
Facts:
Challenge to prison policy allowing cell searches in absence of prisoners.
Issue:
Whether the policy violated prisoners' rights and was lawful.
Holding:
Court ruled the policy unlawful as it breached legal standards of proportionality and fairness.
Explanation:
Highlights the UK courts’ supervisory role over administrative actions ensuring legality and proportionality.
7. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts:
Whether the government could trigger Article 50 to leave the EU without Parliament’s approval.
Issue:
Legal authority for executive action on international treaties.
Holding:
Court ruled Parliament’s approval was required, limiting executive power.
Explanation:
Demonstrates judicial review protecting parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional principles in UK.
8. R (Jackson) v. Attorney General (2005)
Facts:
Challenge to validity of the Hunting Act passed using the Parliament Act procedure.
Issue:
Whether Parliament Act procedure was lawful.
Holding:
Court upheld the Act but acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament can be questioned if fundamental constitutional principles are breached.
Explanation:
Shows evolving views on parliamentary sovereignty and judicial role in constitutional matters.
Summary Table: US vs UK Judicial Review Cases
| Country | Case | Principle Established | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| US | Marbury v. Madison | Judicial review and constitutional supremacy | Courts can invalidate unconstitutional laws |
| US | Brown v. Board of Education | Substantive rights protection | Enforced equality and civil rights |
| US | United States v. Lopez | Limits on federal legislative power | Checks on congressional overreach |
| UK | Entick v. Carrington | Legality principle, government must act by law | Foundation of UK administrative law |
| UK | CCSU v. Minister (GCHQ) | Executive powers subject to fairness review | Limits on prerogative powers |
| UK | R v. Home Dept ex parte Daly | Proportionality and fairness in administrative acts | Strengthened rights protection |
| UK | R (Miller) v. Brexit Sec. of State | Parliamentary sovereignty over executive powers | Protected parliamentary approval requirement |
| UK | R (Jackson) v. AG | Parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional limits | Judicial oversight of parliamentary procedure |
Conclusion
In the US, judicial review is constitutionally mandated and courts have strong power to invalidate legislation and executive acts conflicting with the Constitution.
In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty limits courts’ power; judicial review focuses on the legality, reasonableness, and procedural fairness of executive actions, but courts cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament.
Both systems serve as important checks on government power, but their scope and constitutional foundations differ significantly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments