Before We Start
Why judicial review isn't a universal feature of democracy
It's easy to assume judicial review — courts striking down laws that violate a constitution — is a standard, universal feature of democratic government. It isn't. Different democracies have made genuinely different choices about whether, and how, courts can override elected legislatures.
💡 The UK's Genuinely Different Model
The UK operates under parliamentary sovereignty — courts CANNOT strike down Acts of Parliament. This is a fundamentally different relationship between courts and the legislature than the US model, worth understanding as a genuine structural alternative, not simply "the UK doing it wrong."
Mnemonic
Judicial review across four countries
United States
Strong judicial review
The Supreme Court can invalidate any federal or state law found unconstitutional — a genuinely strong, expansive form of judicial review.
United Kingdom
Parliamentary sovereignty — no judicial review of this type
Courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament — Parliament itself holds supreme legal authority, a fundamentally different model from the US.
France
Constitutional Council reviews laws BEFORE enactment
A genuinely distinct timing model — rather than reviewing laws after they've taken effect and been challenged (as in the US), France's system reviews laws before they're enacted.
Germany
Federal Constitutional Court, similar to the US model
Germany's system operates more similarly to the American approach than France's does, with a dedicated constitutional court holding genuine power to review and strike down laws.
💊 The "countermajoritarian" framing is worth connecting directly to this comparative lesson: unelected judges overriding elected majorities is a genuine tension specifically because it's not a universal or inevitable feature of democracy — different countries have made different, deliberate choices about how much power to grant courts over this exact tension.
⚖️ Applying the Comparison — Predicting an Outcome in a Different System
A law is passed that a group of citizens believes violates fundamental rights. In the US, this law could be challenged in court and potentially struck down. The same scenario is now considered under the UK's system instead.
Apply the UK's Different Model
Under the UK's parliamentary sovereignty model, courts cannot strike down this Act of Parliament — the remedy available in the US (judicial invalidation) simply isn't available in this specific system. This isn't a procedural quirk; it reflects a fundamentally different allocation of ultimate legal authority between courts and the legislature.
Identify the Actual Available Remedy in the UK System
Since judicial invalidation isn't available, any remedy for this law would need to come through Parliament itself — political pressure, a change in government, or Parliament repealing or amending its own law — rather than through the courts. Recognizing this genuinely different pathway to remedy reflects real understanding of how the UK's system differs structurally from the US's.
📌 Exam Application
Comparative judicial review questions test recognition of each country's distinct model:
Country-specific model: "Can UK courts strike down an Act of Parliament?" → No — the UK operates under parliamentary sovereignty.
Timing distinction: "How does France's Constitutional Council review timing differ from the US Supreme Court's?" → France reviews laws BEFORE enactment; the US typically reviews laws after they've taken effect and been challenged.
Comparative similarity: "Which country's judicial review model most closely resembles the US's?" → Germany, through its Federal Constitutional Court.
⚠️ The Trap — Assuming Judicial Review Is a Universal Feature of All Democracies
Because judicial review is such a prominent, well-known feature of the US system, it's easy to assume every democracy must have some equivalent power. The UK's parliamentary sovereignty model is a direct, important counterexample — a genuine, functioning democracy that operates without this specific check.
The safeguard: Remember judicial review as one specific model among several genuine alternatives, not a universal or inevitable feature of democratic governance.
✓ Quick Self-Test
Answer before checking:
1. Does the US have strong or weak judicial review?
2. What is "parliamentary sovereignty," and which country operates under it?
3. How does France's Constitutional Council review timing differ from the US model?
4. Which country's system most closely resembles the US's judicial review model?
Answers:
1. Strong — the Supreme Court can invalidate any federal or state law.
2. A system where Parliament holds supreme legal authority and courts cannot strike down its Acts; the UK.
3. France reviews laws before enactment; the US typically reviews after enactment and legal challenge.
4. Germany, through its Federal Constitutional Court.
Next Lesson
Interest Groups
→