What constitutional principle allows for judicial review?

Judicial review is rooted in the principle of checks and balances, which is designed to ensure that no single branch of government becomes too powerful. This principle allows the judiciary to review and potentially invalidate laws or executive actions that it finds to be unconstitutional, thereby acting as a check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches.

The establishment of judicial review was famously articulated in the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the power of the courts to review acts of Congress and the President. This power is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and upholding constitutional principles, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within their constitutional limits.

While the principle of separation of powers is essential in distributing government powers among the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial), it is the mechanism of checks and balances that specifically empowers the judiciary to evaluate and hold accountable the actions of the other branches, thereby validating the concept of judicial review. Similarly, federalism and limited government also play significant roles in U.S. governance, but they do not directly address the power of judicial review in the same manner as checks and balances do.