Federal Judicial Review

Definition: Federal judicial review is the power of the federal courts to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional.
Process of Federal Judicial Review:
- Federal government, state legislatures, or local governments enact a law or make an executive decision.
- Individuals affected by the law may challenge its constitutionality in court.
- If a party loses the initial case, they can appeal to a higher court, specifically the appellate court.

Part One: Initial Challenge
- Affected individuals argue that a law or executive decision is unconstitutional.
- The case may involve different types of issues based on law or fact:
- Question of Fact: Determined by the district court (e.g., factual guilt or innocence).
- Question of Law: Technical/legal arguments that may be appealed (e.g., self-defense arguments in a killing).
Part Two: Supreme Court's Role
- Supreme Court Agreement: For the Supreme Court to hear the case, they must agree to review it.
- Decision and Reasoning: The Court makes a ruling and justifies it with reasoning, which sets a precedent for future cases.
- Impact of Precedent: Subsequent rulings on similar cases can reference this precedent, affecting legislation and enforcement.

Federal courts cannot act arbitrarily; they must follow a specified legal process for ruling on constitutionality.
The Supreme Court often avoids making constitutional decisions if there is a simpler resolution to the case.
Key Limitation: The courts can only declare laws unconstitutional if they exceed the federal government’s powers or violate previously established restrictions.

Following the Civil War, the courts began asserting greater power to review state laws, although previously they had been cautious.
Bill of Rights and State Law: While many states had protections similar to those in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court was not initially willing to strike down state laws based on these federal rights.
- The Fourteenth Amendment often serves as a justification for federal judicial review of state actions.
Rule Against Command Theory: This prevents the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal laws.
- Example Scenario: Despite marijuana being legalized in some states, it remains illegal under federal law, and enforcement can theoretically happen utilizing federal resources.

Current Issues: Discussions around cases related to marijuana legality illustrate the limitations and reach of federal judicial power.
Rational Review: The standard to determining the constitutionality of laws that do not have special protections, requiring:
1. The law must pursue a legitimate government purpose.
2. There must be a rational basis for the legislature's belief that the law furthers that purpose.
- Example: A hypothetical law requiring the purchase of broccoli was met with skepticism about government overreach into legislative beliefs.

Case of Health Ordinance in Florida: The case involved a local law prohibiting animal slaughter. The court ruled that the ordinance was a pretext to interfere with a religious practice, violating the Constitution.
- Result: This case reinforces that laws cannot disguise ulterior motives, notably those infringing on religious freedom, warranting higher scrutiny levels.
Strict Scrutiny: Applies when laws interfere with rights explicitly outlined in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of religion.

The effectiveness of federal judicial review in alleviating antifederalist fears regarding federal power remains complex and contentious.
Judicial limitations are critical in curbing federal overreach and protecting individual rights, though debates on the sufficiency of these measures continue.

The role of federal judicial review is instrumental in shaping the balance of power between federal and state governments and safeguarding individual rights, yet the implications and applications of this power are deeply layered and warrant ongoing discussion.