The United States has a federal system of government in which power is designated to the federal and state governments. Within the federal government, power is split between three branches of government-the legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch, composed of both Houses of Congress, makes the law. The executive branch, composed of the President, his Cabinet and advisors, enforces the law. The judicial branch, composed of the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, interprets the law.
The Framers
The Framers of the Constitution realized that, in order to properly interpret and impartially apply the law, the judiciary must be above politics. For these reasons, they wrote the Constitution in a manner that would ensure that the courts are not subject to the improper influences of the political branches of government, as the executive and legislative branches are called. The Constitution promotes judicial independence in two key ways. First, judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution are appointed for lifetime terms and can be removed from office only through the impeachment process. Second, judicial pay cannot be reduced. The Constitution states these two concepts as follows: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Judicial Functions
After the Constitution was adopted, the concept of judicial independence became further defined. First, the Court interpreted the concept to prevent it from engaging in legislative and/or executive activities. For instance, in Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), the Court decided that it could not participate in regulatory activities as directed by an Act of Congress because this was a legislative power reserved by the Constitution to Congress, and not a judicial power reserved by the Constitution to the Courts.
Judicial Review
Second, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Court established the hallmark of judicial independence in the United States, the doctrine of judicial review. Judicial review allows a court to strike down a legislative act or executive action that violates the Constitution. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus (a judicial order commanding a public official to perform a certain duty). The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory Congressional Act is without force. Chief Justice Marshall, writing the opinion for the Court, stated:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each," Marbury at 177.
Although the Constitution does not explicitly give the judiciary the authority to declare laws unconstitutional, Chief Justice Marshall implied that judicial review was inherent in judicial power. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."Others have found support for judicial review in Article VI of the Constitution. Article VI states that:
"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Although Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a federal court asserted the power of judicial review, the concept was not entirely original. As early as 1610, English Courts, although rarely, exercised a type of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. For instance, in Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a, 114a C.P. (1610), Lord Chief Justice Edward Coke said:
"And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge it to be void."
Impeachment
Third, the impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase (1804) further defined the scope of judicial independence. Justice Chase was formally impeached (charged) by the House but acquitted by the Senate for what some considered the politically motivated charge of inappropriate judicial conduct. This trial established the precedent that impeachment proceedings should not be used to remove judges who issue unpopular rulings. Judges are free to make rulings that the law requires without fear of losing their job if their rulings prove to be unpopular. Due to this precedent, impeachment charges are not filed against judges based on their judicial decisions.
Judicial Decisions
Finally, the Courts have protected their independence from encroachments from the political branches. For example, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 527 U.S. 507 (1997), the Court ruled that Congress could not dictate the legal test that the Court must apply in cases involving First Amendment freedom of religion claims. The Court stated that the determination of what legal test to apply was a judicial decision that the Constitution left to the Courts.
These examples demonstrate that the doctrine of judicial independence embraces many different concepts, from tenure during good behavior to judicial review. Nevertheless, all of these concepts have a common thread - namely, they are necessary for the judiciary to interpret the law fairly and impartially, free from the pressures of the other two branches of government. The judiciary's independence has been instrumental in ensuring the survival of the United States' constitutional system of government.
|
