Sydney Harris
Professor Wheeler
POLS 433.1
28 Feb 2025
Question 1.) Discuss the sources and the limits of judicial power. Where do the courts get power
and how are their powers limited?
The judicial branch of the United States government derives its authority from several
key sources, including the U.S. Constitution, statutory law, and judicial precedent. However, its
power is not absolute. Various institutional, political, and constitutional constraints attempt to
ensure that courts do not overstep their designated role in the American system of government.
Drawing From Carp, Manning, and Holmes’ Judicial Process in America, this essay explores
both the sources and limits of judicial power.1
The U.S. Constitution provides the primary foundation for judicial power, establishing
the judiciary as a coequal branch of government under Article III. This section grants courts the
authority to hear cases involving constitutional questions, federal law, and disputes between
states. Historically, the judiciary has been important in expanding rights and protections for
marginalized communities, from striking down segregation in Brown v. Board of Education to
affirming marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges. Another key source of judicial power is
statutory law. COngress has the ability to shape the judiciary by defining the scope of federal
courts’ jurisdiction and enacting laws that courts interpret and apply. Statutes such as the Civil
1
Carp, Robert A., et al. Judicial Process in America. CQ Press, 2023.
Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act have empowered courts to challenge systemic
discrimination and protect freedoms.
Judicial precedent, or stare decisis, is also critical in shaping the judiciary’s role in
advancing justice. By relying on past ruling to guide future decisions, courts establish consistent
legal principles that protect civil liberties. However, precedent can also reinforce systemic
injustices if courts fail to evolve with societal progress. The overturning of Plessy v. Furguson in
Brown v. Board of Education demonstrates how the judiciary can rectify historical wrongs
through the reinterpretation of legal doctrines.
While the judiciary has expansive power, it operates within constraints designed to
prevent it from becoming an unaccountable body. One major limitation is the principle of
separation of powers, ensuring that courts do not unilaterally dictate policy but instead function
within a broader system of democratic governance. However, the courts are often called upon to
step in when legislative and executive branches fail to uphold justice, particularly in cases
involving human rights and environmental protection. Standing, mootness, and ripeness, also
limit the judiciary’s ability to hear certain cases. While these doctrines help maintain an orderly
legal system, they can also serve as barriers to justice, particularly when courts refuse to hear
cases that challenge systemic inequities.
Congress holds significant control over the judiciary, including the ability to modify the
number of Supreme Court justices, regulate jurisdiction, and propose constitutional amendments
to override judicial decisions. This power, while theoretically a safeguard against judicial
overreach, has been used to undermine progressive rulings. Recent legislative efforts to limit
voting rights and reproductive freedoms show how political actors can attempt to restrict the
judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights. The executive branch also exercises influence
over the judiciary through judicial appointments and enforcement of court rulings. Presidents
shape the ideological composition of the courts through lifetime judicial appointments, which
often leads to long lasting implications. Additionally, courts lack enforcement power, meaning
that ruling depends on executive compliance.
Public opinion serves as both a limit and source of judicial power. While federal judges
are insulated from direct electoral pressure through lifetime appointments, the legitimacy of the
judiciary depends on public trust. Progressive movements have historically pressured courts to
expand civil rights, demonstrating that popular activism can shape judicial decisions. However,
backlash against rulings perceived as too progressive can also result in efforts to restrict judicial
authority.
The judiciary serves as a vital institution in the struggle for social justice, drawing its
power from the Constitution, statutory law, and judicial precedent. However, it is subject to
structural constraints, including separation of powers, congressional oversight, executive
enforcement, and public opinion. While these limits prevent judicial overreach, they also pose
challenges when courts must act as defenders of civil rights against regressive political forces.
As Carp, Manning, and Holmes discuss in Judicial Process in America, the judiciary’s role in
governance must be understood not only as an interpreter of law but as a crucial mechanism for
advancing equity and democracy.
