 |
By The RepresentUs Team March 13, 2025 |
I have always been persuaded that the stability and success of the National Government, and consequently the happiness of the people of the United States, would depend in a considerable degree on the interpretations and execution of its laws.
– George Washington, 1790
At the heart of the United States Constitution is a system of checks and balances designed to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful. Each branch of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—is separate, yet they must cooperate and hold each other accountable for us to have a functioning, healthy democracy.
Our judicial system plays an important but often overlooked role in the successful balance of power. Let’s take a closer look.
[+] click image to expand
The Role of the Judiciary
Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of three coequal branches of the federal government. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and determining whether laws passed by the legislative branch or actions taken by the executive branch align with its principles.
The federal courts "were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and their legislature" to make sure that representatives did not go beyond the authority granted to them by the Constitution.
– Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78
In the U.S., we adhere to the principle of rule of law, where laws apply equally to all individuals, including government officials, with the Constitution serving as the supreme law of the land.
The Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, codifies core rights and freedoms which are so vital to our nation that they can only be altered through a rigorous amendment process. It is the job of an independent judiciary to ensure these rights are upheld and that all new laws align with the standards set by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this principle in numerous rulings, such as Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established judicial review—the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional. This power is critical in maintaining the balance of power and integrity of the rule of law.
Federal vs. State Courts
The Constitution created a federal system of government where power is shared between the federal government and the many state governments. This means that both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems.
Federal courts handle cases involving constitutional issues, federal laws, and disputes between states. State courts, on the other hand, deal with matters of state law – most criminal cases, contract disputes, and family law. State courts have the final say on state laws and state constitutions, but their conflicts with or interpretations of federal law or the U.S. Constitution may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may or may not choose to hear the appeal.
Judicial selection also varies: federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for lifetime appointments, while state judges are selected through elections, appointments, or a combination of both.
Examples of the Courts Acting as a Check Against Power Grabs
Throughout history, the judicial branch has played a vital role in checking executive and legislative overreach. Key rulings include:
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Supreme Court ruled that President Harry Truman could not seize steel mills during the Korean War, reinforcing limits on executive power.
- United States v. Nixon (1974): The Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, rejecting his claim of executive privilege and demonstrating that even the President is not above the law. Two weeks later, Nixon resigned.
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006): The Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions created by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, reinforcing the principle that executive actions are subject to legal and constitutional limits.
- Moore v. Harper (2023): The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory which would have given state legislatures power over election laws with no accountability to state courts, state constitutions, or voters.
Public Trust in the Courts is Declining
A recent poll shows that Americans’ confidence in the nation’s judicial system is at an all-time low: only 35% of Americans have confidence in the judicial system. Trust in many institutions across the board has been declining overall, but none have seen a loss of public confidence quite like the courts.
This is particularly troublesome because the courts gain a lot of legitimacy from the public’s confidence in them and our system can’t function without the courts functioning as a proper check on power.
So what’s going on? For starters, we can look at the appointment of recent Supreme Court Justices.
What do current Justices…
- Chief Justice John Roberts
- Justice Samuel Alito
- Justice Neil Gorsuch
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett
….have in common? They were all issued lifetime appointments by presidents who actually lost the popular vote in their elections (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016).
We can also look at some of the court’s unpopular recent rulings that fly in the face of public opinion and precedent such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade which 69% of the country disapproves of.
Or the ruling in Trump v. United States which undermines checks on executive power by ruling that a sitting president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution if their law-breaking occurs in the course of “official” conduct (This court case concerned Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection).
The erosion of public trust in the judiciary isn’t just a statistic—it’s a fundamental threat to the integrity of our democracy. When the courts are perceived as politically motivated or lacking a mandate, rather than impartial arbiters of the law, their ability to serve as a check on power weakens. If confidence continues to decline, we risk a system where judicial decisions are met with skepticism rather than respect—undermining the very foundation of the rule of law.
To Hold Power Accountable, We Can’t Rely on the Courts Alone
Courts serve as a crucial check on power grabs, but the increasing attacks on checks and balances by those in power threaten the impartiality and effectiveness of the courts.
When our institutions and our representatives let us down, it’s on We The People to act.
That’s why we’re building a nationwide movement to hold our politicians and government accountable to the needs of the American people. Sign up with us and find out how you can get involved.