Judicial review Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Judicial Review – Courts assess whether executive, legislative, or administrative actions obey a higher legal authority (e.g., a constitution). Authority to Invalidate – A court can strike down any law, act, or decision that conflicts with that higher authority. Checks and Balances – Judicial review is the judicial branch’s tool for limiting legislative and executive power. Separation of Powers – No branch may overstep its constitutionally‑assigned role; courts enforce this boundary. Ultra Vires Principle – Public bodies must act within the powers granted by statute; actions beyond those powers are invalid. Procedural Fairness – Administrative decisions must follow fair procedures (notice, hearing, reasoned decision), even if the substantive outcome is not reviewed. Civil‑Law vs. Common‑Law Views – Civil‑law: Judges only apply existing statutes; they cannot create or discard legal principles. Common‑law: Judges may develop new principles and discard outdated ones. 📌 Must Remember Marbury v. Madison (1803) – First U.S. case asserting judicial review. Basic Structure Doctrine (India, 1973) – Courts can nullify constitutional amendments that alter the constitution’s core framework. Three Approaches to Primary Legislation Review: No Review (e.g., United Kingdom). Review by General Courts (U.S. federal & state courts). Review by Specialized Constitutional Courts (Austria, Czech Republic, India). Miller/Cherry (UK, 2019) – Supreme Court allowed limited review of executive actions despite parliamentary sovereignty. Key Terms – Ultra vires, procedural fairness, parliamentary sovereignty, basic structure. 🔄 Key Processes Pre‑Litigation Requirement Submit a complaint to the responsible authority or fulfill other statutory pre‑conditions. Filing the Judicial Review Application Identify the legal ground (ultra vires, constitutional conflict, procedural unfairness). Court’s Assessment Step A: Determine the relevant higher authority (constitution, constitutional statute). Step B: Compare the challenged act with that authority. Step C: Decide whether the act is invalid (ultra vires or unconstitutional) or valid (complies). Remedy If invalid, the court may declare the act null or order a procedural remedy (e.g., rehearing). 🔍 Key Comparisons Civil‑Law Judges vs. Common‑Law Judges Civil‑Law: Apply statutes only – no law‑making. Common‑Law: Can create/discard legal principles. Legislative Supremacy vs. Separation of Powers Legislative Supremacy: Parliament’s statutes are final (UK). Separation of Powers: Each branch is limited; courts can overturn excesses (U.S., India). No Review vs. General‑Court Review vs. Constitutional‑Court Review No Review: Primary legislation cannot be struck down (UK). General‑Court Review: Any court can declare statutes unconstitutional (U.S.). Constitutional‑Court Review: Only a specialized court has that power (Austria, Czech Republic, India). ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “All countries can review primary legislation.” – False; the UK cannot overturn Acts of Parliament. “Judicial review only concerns constitutional issues.” – Wrong; it also covers ultra vires and procedural fairness of administrative actions. “Procedural fairness = substantive correctness.” – Misleading; fairness concerns the process, not the outcome. 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Legal Thermostat” – Judicial review is the thermostat that keeps government power from overheating beyond constitutional limits. “Gatekeeper” – Courts stand at the gate; any law or action must pass the gate of higher authority before it can affect citizens. 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases United Kingdom – Cannot invalidate primary legislation, but can review secondary legislation and certain executive actions (Miller/Cherry). Specialized Constitutional Courts – In Austria, Czech Republic, and India, only these courts can strike down primary statutes; general courts lack that power. 📍 When to Use Which Challenge a statute? If you are in a common‑law jurisdiction with general‑court review (U.S.), file in a regular court. If the jurisdiction has a specialized constitutional court (India, Austria, Czech Republic), bring the case there. Challenge an administrative decision? Use judicial review focusing on ultra vires or procedural fairness regardless of the court type. Pre‑litigation step required? – Yes, most systems demand a complaint to the agency before court action. 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Ultra vires” appears whenever the issue is exceeding statutory power. “Procedural fairness” signals a process‑based review, not a substantive one. “Basic structure” indicates a constitutional‑amendment challenge (India). “Parliamentary sovereignty” + no primary review points to the UK model. 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “All common‑law countries allow courts to strike down any law.” – Incorrect; the UK (a common‑law system) cannot overturn primary legislation. Distractor: “Procedural fairness is a substantive test of the decision’s merits.” – Wrong; it only checks the fairness of the decision‑making process. Distractor: “Legislative supremacy means courts have no power at all.” – Misleading; even in parliamentary‑sovereign systems, courts may review secondary legislation and executive actions. Distractor: “Ultra vires only applies to private corporations.” – False; it applies to public bodies acting beyond statutory authority.