← Introduction to Political Science outline

Week 9 · Chapter

Chapter 9 — Political Institutions II: Judiciaries, Courts & Judicial Review

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 5 (analyze political institutions — legislatures, executives, and judiciaries — including the parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential designs, government formation and removal, judicial review and judicial independence, and the counter-majoritarian debate), Objective 4 (compare regime types and constitutional structures — direct and representative, electoral and liberal democracy; authoritarian and totalitarian rule; democratization and backsliding; what constitutions do; the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week is about courts, the third branch of government, which settle disputes and, in many countries, can also tell an elected legislature that a law it passed does not count. That power is called judicial review (a court setting aside a law that breaks the constitution). You will learn where the American version of that power came from, in a case from 1803, and how other democracies give the same job to one special court instead. You will also learn to check a court case three times, because chatbots invent cases that sound real. Finally, you will weigh a hard question at full strength on both sides: does letting unelected judges strike down laws make a democracy stronger or weaker?

Why you already care about this

Picture a campus where the student senate votes 14 to 6 to ban flyers on the main lawn. A student group says the ban breaks the student charter, which protects the right of registered groups to post notices. The group takes the dispute to the campus judicial board, a panel of 5 students chosen by lottery. The board votes 4 to 1: the ban conflicts with the charter, so it cannot be enforced.

Notice what happened. Twenty elected senators voted, and five people nobody elected told them their rule does not count. Some students on that campus will call the board a guardian of the charter. Others will call it a handful of people overruling the majority. Both reactions are reasonable, and political scientists have been arguing about them for a very long time.

Countries face the same dispute with much higher stakes. This chapter gives you the vocabulary to describe what a court is doing, the history of how one court got the power, and a fair way to weigh the argument.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

name the three jobs of the judicial function and say which one depends on a special power;
sort a statement about a court as judicial review, judicial independence, or jurisdiction;
show from Article III's text that the Constitution never names judicial review;
state Marbury v. Madison's three questions, its answers, and its holding in the opinion's words;
match Marbury, McCulloch, and Brown to power, scope, and equality;
tell diffuse review from concentrated review on an invented country;
check a case name, a citation, and a quotation as three separate claims;
state the counter-majoritarian difficulty and the strongest case on each side of it.

Carry this line with you: review is the power; independence is the conditions; jurisdiction is the door.

Where we are

Already covered: Weeks 1 to 7 gave you the empirical/normative distinction, power and legitimacy, the ideologies, regime types, constitutions, and legislatures and executives. Week 8 reviewed them and added the three-layer read.
This week: the judicial function; judicial review versus judicial independence versus jurisdiction; Article III and Federalist No. 78; Marbury v. Madison; diffuse and concentrated review; checking cases; and the counter-majoritarian debate.
How they connect: Week 6 listed "a court setting an act aside" among the checks and balances, and Week 7 covered the other two branches; this week you look inside that check.
Where we're going next: Week 10 turns to the U.S. case as a whole, where McCulloch v. Maryland, previewed here, comes back in full.

Week 6 taught you that a constitution creates, empowers, and, where constitutionalism is practiced, limits government. It also showed that a written rule does not enforce itself. Courts are one answer to the question "who enforces it?" Week 8 gave you the three-layer read: a design layer (what the rules say), a practice layer (what actually happens), and a verdict layer (what ought to happen). You will name the layer of every claim about courts this week, because the debate over judicial review mixes all three.

1. Name what courts do: the judicial function

Think about a workplace with an internal grievance panel. A worker says she was denied overtime pay the company handbook promised. The panel hears both sides. It reads the handbook's overtime rule and decides what that rule means for her case. Then it notices something else: a new manager's memo contradicts the handbook, and the handbook says it wins any conflict. So the panel sets the memo aside.

That panel did three different jobs, and courts do the same three.

The judicial function is the three jobs courts do: resolve disputes, interpret and apply the law, and, where the power exists, check the other branches of government.

Resolve disputes. Two sides disagree, and the court decides between them.
Interpret and apply the law. The court works out what a rule means and what it requires in this particular case.
Check the other branches. Where the power exists, the court can refuse to enforce an act of the legislature or the executive that breaks a higher rule.

Worked example — which job is it? Sort each scene from an illustrative state court.

Two neighbors disagree about where their property line runs, and the court decides. Job: resolve a dispute.
The court decides whether a city's "no vehicles in the park" rule covers electric scooters. Job: interpret and apply the law.
The court refuses to enforce a statute because it conflicts with the state constitution. Job: check another branch.

In words: one court, three jobs, and only the third needs a special power.

Misconception check. Students often think every court everywhere can strike down laws. That is tempting, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the court you hear about most. But the first two jobs are what make a body a court. The third, checking the other branches, exists only where a constitution, a law, or a court's own ruling establishes it. That is why the definition says "where the power exists."

Memory hook: settle it, read it, and, where allowed, check it.

2. Pull apart three ideas: review, independence, jurisdiction

Picture three questions about a referee in a soccer league. Can the referee overrule the league's own rule book? Can the team owners fire the referee for a call they hate? And is this game even in the referee's division? Those are three different questions, and courts raise all three.

Here are the course's three terms, which students blur more than any other trio this week.

Judicial review is a court's power to set aside a law or an official act that conflicts with the constitution, so that the act cannot be enforced.
Judicial independence is the set of conditions that let judges decide cases without fear or favor: secure tenure, insulated selection, and compliance with their rulings by the other branches.
Jurisdiction is the rule that decides which court may hear which case, so that a dispute goes to a court with authority over it.

Judicial independence has three supports, and each one has a name.

Secure tenure is protection of a judge's office and pay, such as a long or lifetime term and a salary that cannot be cut, so that a ruling cannot cost the judge the job.
Insulated selection is a way of choosing judges that keeps any one officeholder or party from picking them alone, so that judges do not owe their seats to the people whose acts they review.
Compliance is the other branches carrying out a court's rulings, including rulings they dislike, without which a judgment has no effect.

Calvany and Brenmoor are two countries invented for this course. Everything about them is illustrative.

Worked example — the six-statement sort. For each statement, ask: is it about the power, the conditions, or the door?

Brenmoor's Constitutional Court may strike down a statute that conflicts with the constitution. That is a power. Judicial review.
Any court in Calvany may refuse to apply an unconstitutional statute. Also a power. Judicial review.
Brenmoor's judges serve one twelve-year term, and their pay cannot be cut while they serve. That is a condition. Judicial independence, secure tenure.
Calvany's judges are chosen by a commission of judges and lawyers, not by the cabinet. A condition. Judicial independence, insulated selection.
Brenmoor's government carries out rulings it dislikes. A condition. Judicial independence, compliance.
Only Calvany's labor courts hear wage disputes. That is about which court hears which case. Jurisdiction.

Tally the sort: 2 review + 3 independence + 1 jurisdiction = 6 statements.

In words: two statements describe the power, three describe the conditions that protect judges, and one describes the door into a particular court.

Notice one more thing. A court can have independence without the power of review, and a court with review can still be the wrong court for your case. The three ideas come apart.

Misconception check. Students often treat judicial review and judicial independence as the same thing. That is tempting, because both make courts sound strong. But review is a power a court holds, while independence is the set of conditions that let judges use any power without fear. A court with the power of review and no secure tenure can be pressured into never using it. The two are separate questions, and you ask them separately.

Memory hook: review is the power; independence is the conditions; jurisdiction is the door.

3. Read the text first: Article III and Federalist No. 78

Imagine someone tells you your apartment lease lets the landlord enter at any time. Before you argue, you read the lease. The same habit applies to courts: before you say what a constitution gives judges, you read what it says.

Worked example — searching Article III. The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. Here are the two pinned fragments from its judicial article.

Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court".
Article III, Section 2 extends that power to cases "arising under this Constitution".
Now search both sections for the words "judicial review." They never appear.

Kind and layer: "Neither section names judicial review" is empirical, on the design layer, because you can check it against the National Archives transcript.

So where does the American power come from? Not from a sentence in Article III. You will meet its source in the next section. First, read the design argument that came before it.

The Federalist is the set of 85 essays published under the pen name Publius. Alexander Hamilton wrote No. 78 (1788), the essay on the courts. Two of its fragments are pinned in the Avalon Project's text. The judiciary, Hamilton wrote, "may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment". It is also "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power". The capital letters are the edition's own.

Sort both fragments by kind. Each one is an empirical-leaning claim about the judiciary's design: courts have no force of their own to compel anyone and no will of their own to set policy, so they can only judge. Hamilton offers those claims inside an argument for protecting the courts, which is a normative goal.

Now the dates. The essay came 1788 − 1787 = 1 year after the Constitution was signed, and Marbury came 1803 − 1788 = 15 years after the essay.

In practice (your tools). You can check every fragment in this section yourself. Open the National Archives page titled "The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription" and use your browser's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) to search judicial Power, then arising under, then judicial review. The last search finds nothing, and that empty result is the evidence. For No. 78, open the Avalon Project page for The Federalist No. 78 and search FORCE nor WILL.

Misconception check. Students often think judicial review is written into Article III. That is tempting, because the power is so familiar that it feels as if it must be in the text. But the text vests "The judicial Power" in a supreme Court and lists the cases it covers; it never names a power to strike down laws. A caveat: that does not prove the power is illegitimate. It tells you the power came from somewhere other than one explicit sentence, and the next section shows where.

Memory hook: the text never says "judicial review"; read before you claim.

4. Trace the power to Marbury v. Madison

Imagine you were promised a job on your campus, the offer letter was signed, and it was never handed to you. You go to the highest office on campus to demand it. The office says three things: you have a right to the job, the rules give you a remedy, and this office is not allowed to give it to you. That is close to the shape of the case that created American judicial review.

A commission is the signed document that formally appoints a person to a public office, such as the one Marbury claimed he had a right to receive. A writ is a formal court order commanding an official or a party to do or stop doing something. Original jurisdiction is a court's authority to hear a case first, as the court where the case begins, rather than reviewing another court's decision on appeal.

Worked example — Marbury's three questions. Marbury v. Madison (1803) asked three questions in order.

Did Marbury have a right to his commission? Yes.
Did the law give him a remedy? Yes.
Could this Court issue the writ? No. A statute had given the Court original jurisdiction in this kind of case, but that grant conflicted with Article III, so the statute was void.

Tally: 2 yes + 1 no = 3 questions.

In words: Marbury won the argument about his rights and lost the case, because the Court said the law that let him sue there was unconstitutional.

The holding is the rule of law a court's decision rests on, the part of an opinion that answers the legal question the case put. An opinion is a court's written explanation of its decision and the reasons for it, the text a holding is quoted from. Here is Marbury's holding in the opinion's own words, as the Legal Information Institute prints it:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
"a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument"

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), came 1803 − 1787 = 16 years after the signing. The Court established judicial review in its own opinion; the Constitution's text did not.

Kind and layer: "the Court held that the statute was void" is empirical, on the practice layer, a fact about what a court did that you check against the opinion. Whether the Court ought to have claimed the power is a verdict-layer question, and it is the one this week's debate takes up.

Misconception check. Students often say Marbury ordered the commission delivered. That is tempting, because Marbury had a right and a remedy, so a win seems to follow. But the Court held that it could not issue the writ. Marbury got the right and not the remedy he asked for, and the Court walked away with a far larger power.

Memory hook: Marbury got the right, not the remedy, and the Court got the power.

5. Sort the three pinned cases: power, scope, equality

Think of three trips to a doctor. One visit decides who is in charge of your treatment. Another decides how far a prescription can reach. A third decides whether you are being treated the same as everyone else. Three visits, three different kinds of question.

This course pins exactly three Supreme Court cases. Each one settled a different kind of question, and the matching items in this course key on that difference.

Worked example — the three-case sort. Read each case's pinned words and name its kind.

The three pinned Supreme Court cases by year, kind of question, and pinned words
Case	Year	Kind of question	Pinned words from the opinion
Marbury v. Madison	1803	power: who decides what the Constitution means	"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
McCulloch v. Maryland	1819	scope: implied powers and federal supremacy	"the power to tax involves the power to destroy"
Brown v. Board of Education	1954	equality	"Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Tally: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 cases, each settling a different kind of question. The sort spans 1954 − 1803 = 151 years.

In words: Marbury is about who decides, McCulloch is about how far federal power reaches, and Brown is about equal treatment.

McCulloch is a preview only. Week 10 rebuilds it from the opinion's text, and you do not need its details yet.

Misconception check. Students often blend the three cases into one story about "the Court being powerful." That is tempting, because all three are famous rulings by the same Court. But Marbury is about the power of review, McCulloch about the scope of federal power, and Brown about equality. A student who answers "judicial review" for McCulloch has mixed up a case about which branch decides with a case about how far one level of government reaches.

Memory hook: Marbury = power; McCulloch = scope; Brown = equality.

6. Compare two architectures: diffuse and concentrated review

Picture two schools that handle a broken rule in the student handbook. In the first, any teacher who notices the conflict can refuse to enforce the rule in their own classroom. In the second, only one appeals committee can cancel a rule, and it can do so before anyone is punished under it. Both schools can fix a bad rule. They route the job differently.

Democracies route judicial review in the same two ways.

Diffuse review is an arrangement in which any court may set aside an unconstitutional law while deciding an ordinary case, as in the United States.
Concentrated review is an arrangement in which one constitutional court alone may set aside an unconstitutional law, often able to rule in the abstract; it is also called the Kelsen model.
A constitutional court is a specialized court whose main task is deciding whether laws and official acts conform to the constitution.
Abstract review is review of a law's constitutionality before any dispute arises, usually at the request of officials such as a share of the legislature.

The Kelsen model is named for the Austrian jurist Hans Kelsen, whose design for Austria's 1920 constitution influenced its spread.

Worked example — Calvany and Brenmoor. Read each invented country's rules and name the architecture.

Calvany (illustrative). Any court in Calvany, hearing an ordinary lawsuit, may refuse to apply a statute it finds unconstitutional, and the losing side can appeal. Architecture: diffuse review.
Brenmoor (illustrative). Only Brenmoor's Constitutional Court may strike down a statute. Its 150-member legislature can send it a new law for review before any dispute arises, if a third of the members ask. A third of 150 is 150 ÷ 3 = 50 members. Architecture: concentrated review, with abstract review.

In words: Calvany spreads the power across every court, and Brenmoor gathers it into one court that can act before a dispute exists.

Kind and layer: both descriptions are empirical, on the design layer, because each can be checked against the invented country's rules. Whether either country chose wisely is a verdict-layer question.

Misconception check. Students often read concentrated review as a mark of an authoritarian court. That is tempting, because a single powerful court sounds like a tool for whoever controls it. But concentrated review is a design choice used by many liberal democracies, and diffuse review can be captured too. Neither architecture is more democratic by fiat. What matters for democracy is a different question: whether the court has the independence you met in Section 2.

Memory hook: diffuse spreads the power; concentrated gathers it.

7. Check every case claim: name, citation, quotation

Imagine a friend tells you, "There's a law that says landlords have to give you a week's notice, and a judge once said renters always win." You would want to see the law and the judge's actual words before you acted on it. Court cases deserve the same caution, and chatbots make that caution urgent.

Chatbots invent whole court cases, citations, and judicial quotations, and they state them with confidence. An invented case can come with a realistic case name, a realistic citation, and a sentence that sounds like a judge wrote it. Any one of the three can be real while the others are made up.

A case citation is the reference that tells a reader where an opinion is printed, such as 5 U.S. 137 for volume 5 of the United States Reports at page 137.

So this course treats a case name, a citation, and a quotation as three separate claims, and you check each one against the Legal Information Institute, Oyez, or the Court's own site.

Worked example — the verification count. You have three pinned cases. For each one, you check three claims: the case name, the citation, and the quotation. That is 3 × 3 = 9 checks, each made against the Legal Information Institute, Oyez, or the Court's own site.

In words: nine small checks stand between you and repeating an invented case.

One honesty note about sources: they do not always print a sentence the same way. The Court's own site shortens the Marbury sentence to "the province of the judicial department"; this course follows the opinion. A shortened version is not an invention, but it is not the opinion's text either, so you quote the opinion.

In practice (your tools). Open the Legal Information Institute's page for Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137. First, check that the page title gives the same case name and the same citation you were handed. Then use your browser's find command to search a short, distinctive run of the quotation, such as province and duty. If the case name, the citation, or the words are missing, record which claim failed. Do the same for the other two pinned cases.

Misconception check. Students often assume that a citation proves a case is real. That is tempting, because "5 U.S. 137" looks official. But a chatbot can produce a correctly formatted citation for a case that never existed, or attach a real citation to a sentence the opinion never contains. A citation is one claim among three. Each claim needs its own check.

Memory hook: name, number, words: three claims, three checks.

8. Weigh the counter-majoritarian difficulty

Go back to the campus judicial board. Five unelected students set aside a rule that twenty elected senators passed. Was that the charter protecting students from a passing majority, or a few people overruling many? Your answer depends on what you value, and that is why this question belongs on the verdict layer.

Political scientists and legal scholars have a name for this problem. Bickel (1962), The Least Dangerous Branch, which is in copyright and taught here in words, named it the counter-majoritarian difficulty. When an unelected court strikes down a law passed by elected representatives, it overrides the majority in the constitution's name. The date to know: Bickel's book appeared in 1962, 1962 − 1803 = 159 years after Marbury.

Proponents of robust judicial review argue at full strength from two ideas.

Precommitment is the argument for judicial review that a people binds its future self to rules it chose in a calmer moment, and courts hold it to that promise. On this view, a court enforcing the constitution is enforcing the people's own earlier decision.
Minority protection is the argument for judicial review that some rights should not depend on winning a vote, so a court may shield a minority from a majority's law.

Critics respond at full strength, too, and you should hear them out.

The counter-majoritarian worry itself. In a democracy, the people's elected representatives should make the hard choices, and a court that overrides them weakens self-government.
Juristocracy is a critics' term for government in which too many value questions move from voters and legislatures to judges. On this view, constitutional language is often broad enough that judges end up deciding moral questions the voters should settle.

Now name the kind and layer of three claims. "Article III never names judicial review" is empirical, on the design layer, checkable against the text. "Brenmoor's government carries out rulings it dislikes" is empirical, on the practice layer, checkable against what happens. "Unelected judges ought not to overturn laws passed by elected representatives" is normative, on the verdict layer, and neither the text nor the cases settle it.

Here is a caveat for both sides. Each side's best point is partly empirical: whether courts in fact protect minorities, or in fact take over value questions, can be studied case by case. But even settled evidence would not finish the argument, because the core question is how much weight a democracy ought to give majority rule against rights. That part is yours.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two:

(a) State the strongest case for the side of this debate you find less persuasive, as its best defender would state it, in two or three sentences.
(b) Think of a group you belong to (a club, a team, a workplace). Does any body in it have the power to set aside a rule the majority passed, and should it?

Misconception check. Students often think that naming the counter-majoritarian difficulty proves judicial review is undemocratic. That is tempting, because "difficulty" sounds like a verdict. But Bickel named a problem to be weighed, and defenders answer it with precommitment and minority protection. A quiz in this course can ask what each side claims; no one in this course will tell you which side is right.

Memory hook: the court guards the rules, or the court overrides the people; you weigh which.

Key terms

judicial function — The three jobs courts do: resolve disputes, interpret and apply the law, and, where the power exists, check the other branches of government. (first used: 1. Name what courts do: the judicial function)
judicial review — A court's power to set aside a law or an official act that conflicts with the constitution, so that the act cannot be enforced. (first used: 2. Pull apart three ideas: review, independence, jurisdiction)
judicial independence — The set of conditions that let judges decide cases without fear or favor: secure tenure, insulated selection, and compliance with their rulings by the other branches. (first used: 2. Pull apart three ideas: review, independence, jurisdiction)
jurisdiction — The rule that decides which court may hear which case, so that a dispute goes to a court with authority over it. (first used: 2. Pull apart three ideas: review, independence, jurisdiction)
secure tenure — Protection of a judge's office and pay, such as a long or lifetime term and a salary that cannot be cut, so that a ruling cannot cost the judge the job. (first used: 2. Pull apart three ideas: review, independence, jurisdiction)
insulated selection — A way of choosing judges that keeps any one officeholder or party from picking them alone, so that judges do not owe their seats to the people whose acts they review. (first used: 2. Pull apart three ideas: review, independence, jurisdiction)
compliance — The other branches carrying out a court's rulings, including rulings they dislike, without which a judgment has no effect. (first used: 2. Pull apart three ideas: review, independence, jurisdiction)
commission — The signed document that formally appoints a person to a public office, such as the one Marbury claimed he had a right to receive. (first used: 4. Trace the power to Marbury v. Madison)
writ — A formal court order commanding an official or a party to do or stop doing something. (first used: 4. Trace the power to Marbury v. Madison)
original jurisdiction — A court's authority to hear a case first, as the court where the case begins, rather than reviewing another court's decision on appeal. (first used: 4. Trace the power to Marbury v. Madison)
holding — The rule of law a court's decision rests on, the part of an opinion that answers the legal question the case put. (first used: 4. Trace the power to Marbury v. Madison)
opinion — A court's written explanation of its decision and the reasons for it, the text a holding is quoted from. (first used: 4. Trace the power to Marbury v. Madison)
diffuse review — An arrangement in which any court may set aside an unconstitutional law while deciding an ordinary case, as in the United States. (first used: 6. Compare two architectures: diffuse and concentrated review)
concentrated review — An arrangement in which one constitutional court alone may set aside an unconstitutional law, often able to rule in the abstract; it is also called the Kelsen model. (first used: 6. Compare two architectures: diffuse and concentrated review)
constitutional court — A specialized court whose main task is deciding whether laws and official acts conform to the constitution. (first used: 6. Compare two architectures: diffuse and concentrated review)
abstract review — Review of a law's constitutionality before any dispute arises, usually at the request of officials such as a share of the legislature. (first used: 6. Compare two architectures: diffuse and concentrated review)
case citation — The reference that tells a reader where an opinion is printed, such as 5 U.S. 137 for volume 5 of the United States Reports at page 137. (first used: 7. Check every case claim: name, citation, quotation)
counter-majoritarian difficulty — Bickel's name, from The Least Dangerous Branch (1962), for the problem that an unelected court striking down a law passed by elected representatives overrides the majority in the constitution's name. (first used: 8. Weigh the counter-majoritarian difficulty)
precommitment — The argument for judicial review that a people binds its future self to rules it chose in a calmer moment, and courts hold it to that promise. (first used: 8. Weigh the counter-majoritarian difficulty)
minority protection — The argument for judicial review that some rights should not depend on winning a vote, so a court may shield a minority from a majority's law. (first used: 8. Weigh the counter-majoritarian difficulty)
juristocracy — A critics' term for government in which too many value questions move from voters and legislatures to judges. (first used: 8. Weigh the counter-majoritarian difficulty)

Summary

Courts resolve disputes, interpret and apply the law, and, where the power exists, check the other branches.
Judicial review is the power; judicial independence is the conditions; jurisdiction is which court hears which case.
Article III vests "The judicial Power" in one supreme Court and never names judicial review.
Federalist No. 78 calls the judiciary the weakest branch, with "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment".
Marbury v. Madison (1803): a right, yes; a remedy, yes; a writ from this Court, no; the Court got the power.
Marbury is about power, McCulloch about scope, and Brown about equality.
Diffuse review spreads the power across courts; concentrated review gathers it in one constitutional court.
A case name, a citation, and a quotation are three claims, each checked against a court source.
The counter-majoritarian debate has strong cases on both sides, and the verdict is yours.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A made-up island republic gives one Charter Court the sole power to cancel laws, and a fifth of its 210-member assembly can ask that court to review a bill before it takes effect. Which architecture is this, and how many members must ask? Show the steps.
Sort three statements about a made-up city court as review, independence, or jurisdiction. Statement (a): its judges cannot be removed for a ruling the mayor dislikes. Statement (b): it may cancel a city ordinance that breaks the city charter. Statement (c): it hears only parking appeals.
A study group hands you four court cases a chatbot listed, each with a name, a citation, and a quotation. How many separate checks do you need? Show the steps.
An invented speaker says: "A court stopped the town council's new curfew, and courts should never overrule an elected council." Name the kind and the layer of each half of the sentence.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

It is concentrated review, with abstract review. One court alone can cancel laws, and it can act before any dispute arises. A fifth of 210 is 210 ÷ 5 = 42, so 42 members must ask. If any court could refuse to apply the law in an ordinary case, it would be diffuse review instead.
Statement (a) is judicial independence. It is a condition that protects judges, here secure tenure. Statement (b) is judicial review, because it is the power to set aside a lower rule that breaks a higher one. Statement (c) is jurisdiction, because it says which cases this court may hear. The tally is 1 review + 1 independence + 1 jurisdiction = 3 statements.
You need 12 checks. Each case carries three claims, the name, the citation, and the quotation, so 4 × 3 = 12. A real citation does not vouch for the quotation beside it, which is why each claim gets its own check.
"A court stopped the town council's new curfew" is empirical, on the practice layer: you can check what happened. "Courts should never overrule an elected council" is normative, on the verdict layer: it is argued from values, here the counter-majoritarian side, and the facts alone cannot settle it.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Next week, McCulloch's rule on implied powers returns as the U.S. case begins.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com