The Federal Case for Judicial Review

Erin F. Delaney*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

In 'The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review', Jeremy Waldron reset the terms of the debate over judicial review, concluding that a legislature outperformed a court as the institution best suited for resolving rights disagreements. Waldron's arguments have had influence in both theory and practice, as even now, scholars and politicians in the United Kingdom (UK) draw on his work in debates over codifying the British constitution. But Waldron's project is grounded in an unstated assumption - his political unit is a unitary nation state. Federation fundamentally challenges his approach and flips his conclusion on its head. This Article presents the "federal"case for judicial review and contends that, in a federation, it is the federal apex court that is superior to the federal legislature for settling disagreements over rights.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)733-757
Number of pages25
JournalOxford Journal of Legal Studies
Volume42
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2022

Keywords

  • apex courts
  • democracy
  • federalism
  • judicial review
  • rights

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Federal Case for Judicial Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this