The Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) is a major player in the US federal judiciary system, as it possesses ultimate jurisdiction over other courts. Apart from being the highest court changed with the responsibility of handling cases that cannot be handled by lower courts, SCOTUS influences policymaking. This court has the power to overturn executive orders and laws that are either unlawful or unconstitutional. The reason why this is the case if the fact that the Supreme Court is a part of the Judiciary branch of the government charged with the responsibility of interpreting laws. The Supreme Court conducts judicial reviews a doctrine that allows it to review both executive and legislative decisions and determine if they are constitutional or not. The public expects that the Supreme Court will provide checks and balances to the other two branches of government to ensure that they perform within legal confines. An analysis of the working of the Supreme Court is essential for determining how it influences policies and how this role links it to the legislative and executive branches.
Supreme Court Role in Policymaking
The Supreme Court can interpret laws that are the benchmarks for any policy that is enacted by the legislative or the executive branch. Once the policies have been crafted, the Supreme Court must go through the policy documents to establish whether the document aligns with the Constitution or not. According to Strother (2017), the Court achieves this objective through judicial reviews, which point to the separation of power in modern government systems. Policies and acts that are not compatible with constitution provisions are annulled or taken back to the relevant branch with recommendations for improvements. Judicial reviews are more of two different but parallel legal systems that base their actions on common law and civil law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moreover, judicial reviews can be understood as relied on two distinct theories that outline separation of powers, legislative supremacy and how the government should be set up. In this case, common law judges can create new legal rules as well as rejecting legal rules that they deem invalid. On the other hand, civil law judges can only apply for the roles as they have the power to either create or invalidate existing legal provisions. To this end, judicial reviews ensure that there is a separation of power to ensure that neither of the three branches of government has more authority as compared to the other two (Dragu &Board, 2015). With this in mind, the Supreme Court can overturn executive or legislative policies that are invalid or do not conform to the needs of each of the branches of government.
The US Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power and the mandate to overturn executive decisions and laws that are either unconstitutional or unlawful. The Supreme Court’s constitutional legitimacy to declare laws unconstitutional dates back to 1803 in Marbury v. Madison case that allowed it to implement checks and balances system (Ray, 2016). The case also allowed judges to have the final say on the allocation of authority within the three branches of government. More so, the case gave Supreme Court judges to set boundaries regarding their judicial power as well as ensuring that they are immune from the executive and legislative checks and balances. Looking at the scenario, one could conclude that the Supreme Court yields too much power that could determine the policymaking process. While the Supreme Court cannot enforce its rulings directly, it relies on its respect for the Constitution and the law to enforce its decisions on various policy issues.
Importance of the Supreme Court's influence in Policy-Making as it Relates to Legislative and Executive Branches
The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in not only offering checks and balances to the other two branches but also assisting the two in policymaking. By interpreting laws that govern the policymaking process, the Executive and the Legislature can operate within legal and constitutional confines to the benefits of the electorate. Any policy that is crafted by these two branches follows the required legal and constitutional procedures and as such, is deemed beneficial and necessary (Dragu & Board, 2015). While the Supreme Court seems to relate so well with these two branches, at times, it seems to overstep its boundaries, as it appears immune to scrutiny, checks, and balances. The Supreme Court judges seem to have so much authority, which can come in the way of effective policymaking policies, especially if they have stakes. In such a case, the legislative and the executive branches use their power too to overturn the court’s decisions.
The Legislature has in the past, overturned Supreme Court decision involving crucial policies by amending the Constitution. 11 th , 13 th , 14 th, and 16 th Amendments by the legislature overturned and reversed pivotal Supreme Court decisions in the past. For example, in 1793, legislative action in the form of the 11 th Amendments overturned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia (Justia, 2020). The court had decided that state citizens have the right to sue state governments in federal courts creating new policies. Thrower (2019) notes that legislative and executive actions only reverse court decision that emanates from the interpretation of laws not the Constitution. Looking at the scenario, it is clear that the Supreme Court though influential in shaping policies, is itself not immune from institutional and political restraints. On the other hand, the Supreme Court through judicial review defines the nature and scope of the powers and separation between the executive and legislative branches. In the same breath, the Supreme Court can pass a decision that imposes limitations regarding the Executive’s authority and in this way, influences policies.
References
Dragu, T., & Board, O. (2015). On judicial review in a separation of powers system. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(3), 473-492. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.44
Justia. (2020). Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/
Ray, C. (2016). John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Construction of Constitutional Legitimacy. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 15(1), 205-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872116650867
Strother, L. R. (2017). Impact: The Supreme Court in American politics [Doctoral dissertation]. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/741
Thrower, S. (2019). Presidential action and the Supreme Court: The case of signing statements. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 31(4), 677-698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629819875519
