Judicial Review: Impact on Constitutional Interpretation, Marbury v. Madison (1803),Originalism, Living Constitution, From Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to Brown v. Board of Education (1954):

Judicial Review: Impact on Constitutional Interpretation

Judicial review is the power of courts—primarily supreme or constitutional courts—to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive actions, and lower court decisions. First formally established in the U.S. through Marbury v. Madison (1803), judicial review has had a profound impact on how constitutions are interpreted and applied across many democratic systems.

1. Preserving Constitutional Supremacy

Judicial review ensures that all laws and government actions remain subordinate to the constitution. Courts act as guardians of the constitution, striking down legislation that violates constitutional provisions. This reinforces the principle that the constitution is the highest law of the land.

2. Evolving Interpretation of the Constitution

Through judicial review, courts do not merely enforce the text of the constitution; they interpret its meaning. This interpretation can evolve over time in response to social, political, and economic changes. For example:
In the U.S., the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has shifted dramatically from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Courts may apply doctrines like “living constitution” or “originalism” depending on their judicial philosophy, shaping the direction of constitutional law.

Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation: “Living Constitution” vs. “Originalism”

These two major interpretive doctrines represent opposing philosophies on how judges should read and apply the Constitution. The tension between them plays a central role in judicial review and shapes the outcomes of landmark cases.

1. Originalism

Definition:

Originalism is the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning—what the text meant to the people who wrote and ratified it.

Key Concepts:

Original Intent:

 What the Framers intended the words to mean.

Original Meaning/Textualism: 

What the words meant to the public at the time they were written.

Notable Proponents:

Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Clarence Thomas

Advantages:

Promotes judicial restraint—judges shouldn’t “make law.”

Offers a fixed reference point, reducing subjectivity.

Respects the democratic process—changes should come via amendments.

Criticisms:

May lead to outdated outcomes in a modern society (e.g., ignoring privacy or technology rights).

Historical meanings can be unclear or contested.

Can preserve injustices rooted in the past (e.g., segregation, sexism).

2. Living Constitution

Definition:

The “Living Constitution” view holds that the Constitution has an evolving meaning that should adapt to modern circumstances, even if the text doesn’t explicitly change.

Key Concepts:

Emphasizes context, purpose, and moral progress.

The Constitution is seen as a dynamic document, not frozen in the 18th century.

Often linked to broad interpretations of rights under due process and equal protection.

Notable Proponents:

Justice Stephen Breyer

Justice William Brennan

Advantages:

Promotes justice in modern contexts (e.g., racial equality, reproductive rights).

Keeps the Constitution relevant as society evolves.

Empowers courts to protect individual rights when political processes fail.

Criticisms:

Can lead to judicial activism—judges imposing their values.

Lacks objective limits, risking inconsistency.

Undermines the amendment process and democratic accountability.

Examples in Practice:

Issue Originalist View Living Constitution View

 
Abortion (Roe v. Wade) No right—Constitution doesn't mention abortion Right protected by evolving concept of privacy

Gun Rights (DC v. Heller) Right to bear arms based on 18th-century understanding Could vary with modern gun violence concerns

Same-Sex Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges) No right—framers didn’t conceive of same-sex marriage Protected under evolving equal protection doctrine

Bottom Line:

Originalism emphasizes fidelity to the Constitution’s fixed historical meaning.

The Living Constitution approach emphasizes the document’s moral and functional adaptability.

Judges often combine elements of both, but where they lean often shapes how they rule on controversial issues. Balancing Government Power

Judicial review checks the powers of the legislative and executive branches. By invalidating unconstitutional laws or actions, courts maintain the separation of powers and prevent overreach.

4. Protecting Individual Rights

Courts often use judicial review to uphold or expand civil liberties. Landmark cases have struck down laws infringing on freedom of speech, religion, or due process. Examples include:

Roe v. Wade (1973), recognizing a woman’s right to choose.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), legalizing same-sex marriage.

These interpretations have reshaped constitutional understandings of rights.

5. Controversy and Criticism

While judicial review strengthens constitutional governance, critics argue it grants unelected judges excessive power over democratic processes. It raises questions about:

Judicial activism vs. judicial restraint: Should judges interpret laws broadly or narrowly?

Democratic legitimacy: Should courts override the will of elected bodies?

Marbury v. Madison (1803): 

The Foundation of Judicial Review in the U.S.

Overview:

Marbury v. Madison is one of the most significant cases in American legal history because it established the principle of judicial review—the authority of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional. This case laid the foundation for the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution.

Background:

In the final days of his presidency, John Adams appointed several "Midnight Judges" under the Judiciary Act of 1801 to maintain Federalist influence.

William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia, but his commission wasn't delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office.

Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission.

Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court, asking it to issue a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission).

Legal Questions:

Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
➤ Yes. Once the commission was signed and sealed, it was legally valid.

Was there a legal remedy?
➤ Yes. Courts could provide a remedy when a legal right is violated.

Could the Supreme Court issue the writ of mandamus in this case?
➤ No. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court that power, was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution allowed.

Key Ruling:

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the unanimous opinion, which declared:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

This statement established judicial review: the idea that the judiciary can invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Impact:

Empowered the Judiciary: It firmly placed the Supreme Court as an equal branch of government with the power to interpret the Constitution.

Checks and Balances: Provided a judicial check on legislative and executive actions.

Enduring Legacy: Judicial review has been central to countless landmark rulings, from civil rights to federalism.

From Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to Brown v. Board of Education (1954):

 A Turning Point in Constitutional Interpretation

This 58-year journey marks one of the most significant reversals in U.S. constitutional law—particularly in the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The evolution from Plessy to Brown demonstrates how judicial review can reflect and influence changing societal values, especially concerning civil rights and racial equality.

1. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): "Separate but Equal"

Background:

Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth Black, challenged a Louisiana law requiring racial segregation on trains.

He argued that enforced segregation violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws."

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Court upheld the Louisiana law, stating that racial segregation was constitutional as long as the separate facilities were "equal."

This decision enshrined the doctrine of "separate but equal" into U.S. law.

Impact:

Legitimized and expanded racial segregation, especially in the South.

Led to the proliferation of Jim Crow laws, segregating public schools, transportation, restrooms, and more.

Facilities for Black Americans were almost always inferior, undermining the "equal" part of the doctrine in practice.

2. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): Overturning Segregation in Schools

Background:

A class-action suit led by Oliver Brown challenged the segregation of public schools in Topeka, Kansas, on behalf of his daughter, who was denied entry to a white school closer to home.

The case combined several similar cases under the name Brown.

The NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall, argued that separate schools inherently denied Black children equal educational opportunities.

Supreme Court Ruling (Unanimous):

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:

“Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

The Court overturned Plessy, at least in the context of public education, stating that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Impact:

Marked the beginning of the end of legal segregation in the U.S.

Laid the foundation for the modern civil rights movement.

Sparked widespread resistance in some states, leading to legal and political battles over school desegregation (e.g., Little Rock Nine in 1957).

Demonstrated the power of judicial review to shift constitutional interpretation in response to evolving standards of justice.

Key Takeaways:

Case

Decision

Legal Doctrine

Impact

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Segregation constitutional

“Separate but Equal”

Legalized racial segregation

Brown v. Board (1954)

Segregation unconstitutional in schools

“Inherently Unequal”

Overturned Plessy, launched desegregation

Roe v. Wade (1973):

 Constitutional Right to Abortion

Overview:

Roe v. Wade is one of the most famous and controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history. In this 1973 ruling, the Court recognized that the right to privacy, implied by the Constitution, extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. This case reshaped American law and politics for decades.

Background:

“Jane Roe” (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey) challenged a Texas law that made abortion illegal except to save a woman’s life.

She argued that the law violated her constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, was the named respondent.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Decision: 7–2 in favor of Roe

Majority Opinion by: Justice Harry Blackmun

Key Holding:

The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects a woman’s right to privacy, which encompasses her decision to terminate a pregnancy.
The Trimester Framework:

The Court developed a regulatory framework that balanced a woman’s rights and the state's interests:

First Trimester: The state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring a qualified physician.

Second Trimester: The state may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health.

Third Trimester: Once the fetus is viable, the state may prohibit abortion except when necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.

Impact:

Legalized abortion nationwide, striking down many state laws.

Sparked intense national debate on abortion rights, religion, and judicial activism.

Became a central issue in judicial nominations and U.S. politics.

Later Developments:

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed the core holding of Roe but replaced the trimester framework with the "undue burden" standard.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade, ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, and returned regulation to the states.

Constitutional Significance:

Roe showed how the Court can use substantive due process to expand civil liberties.

It also ignited debates about judicial activism, federalism, and the role of courts in moral and social issues.

Conclusion

Judicial review plays a critical role in constitutional interpretation by allowing courts to clarify, adapt, and enforce constitutional principles. While it reinforces the rule of law and protects rights, its exercise must balance judicial independence with democratic accountability.