Judicial review
From Common law and constitutional law
Constitutional and public law
What it means
The power of courts to check the acts of other parts of the state. The phrase covers two different things: review of administrative action, and review of the constitutionality of legislation.
Why it travels badly
In the United Kingdom, 'judicial review' is mainly about whether a public body acted lawfully. Courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament. In the United States, the phrase is more often about striking down laws. In civil-law systems, constitutional review is often given to a special court, and in some it takes place before a law comes into force.
How other systems say it
judicial review of legislation
Established in Marbury v Madison (1803): any court may refuse to apply a law that conflicts with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has the last word.
judicial review of administrative action
Courts review public bodies, but cannot strike down an Act of Parliament. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, section 4, they can only declare a law incompatible.
Normenkontrolle by the Federal Constitutional Court
Concentrated in one court, which can strike down laws.
contrôle de constitutionnalité (Conseil constitutionnel)
Traditionally review before a law is promulgated. Since 2010 a person can also raise the issue in a case (question prioritaire de constitutionnalité).
Tip for translators and students
Say which kind of review the text means: of administrative action, or of legislation. The English phrase alone does not tell the reader.
See the Legal Dictionary entry →
Related: Rechtsstaat, Proportionality, Droit administratif
Updated October 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us.
TheLawToKnow Tools’s glossary is an educational overview of the main differences between legal systems. It is not legal advice.
