Judicial Review In The UK And US Judiciary

1432 Words 6 Pages
The Judiciary is the section of government which is tasked with interpreting laws passed by parliament. In the USA the constitution established the Supreme Court under article 3 of the constitution. It is the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation and its decisions can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment. In the UK, a supreme court was established in 2009 to provide greater clarity in the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

In the UK, under the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, it is parliament which makes the laws but it is the courts who are tasked with interpreting them. Membership of the European Union allows the Judiciary to scrutinise domestic legislation to ensure it meets the requirements of European legislation
…show more content…
In American politics is conducted within the framework of a written constitution which establishes the powers of the different branches of government, as well as many of the fundamental rights and liberties of American citizens. However, since the Constitution is such a brief document that sets out general principles and in most areas is not very specific in what it means. Therefore, its precise meaning in any particular situation is often unclear. As a result, many of the decisions reached about what the Constitution actually means have been reached by judges whose role it is to establish and interpret constitutional law. It is evident that constitutional law requires constitutional interpretation, this has now become the use of the US Supreme Court. One main example of the use of a judicial review is found in the Brown vs Topeka Board of Education case of 1954, where Supreme Court justice Earl Warren declared the segregation of schools caused inequality and therefore unconstitutional. This highlights not only the power of the US Supreme Court but also that in the USA the constitution is sovereign. In contrast, the judiciary in the United Kingdom have no similar function, nor similar impact. This is due to judges being limited to making a “declaration of incompatibility” which does not affect the validity of the legislation. The Factortame case confirmed the supremacy of EU law over national in …show more content…
The separation of powers has had only partial recognition in the United Kingdom. There is a strong tradition of judicial independence, through a range of guarantees enshrined in statute, long-standing constitutional convention, precedent and case law. Therefore, the principle that separates the judiciary from the legislative and executive in the UK is called the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence is the principle protects judges at all levels from unsavoury consequences if they take the government to task over government decisions and are free of annual parliamentary criticism, which might be used to mould future judicial decisions. Political theorist A.V. Dicey argues that The Rule of Law, acts as a check on parliamentary sovereignty and allows a degree of protection for rights by enabling the courts to review allegations that government ministers or officials have acted illegally. Judicial neutrality holds that judges should be politically neutral and that judges should be neutral in their stance to the law, and seek to apply laws passed by Parliament in an impartial unbiased and technical manner. However the view has long been that judges are not normally neutral. They are frequently seen as a conservative body who tend to favour the status quo and the authority of the state over the more progressive ideas of individual citizens. In the USA, In order to

Related Documents