Germany's Constitutional Court can review laws without waiting for a specific case

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

Read the majority opinion that established judicial review

In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a written constitution is "paramount law" and that courts must refuse to enforce statutes that conflict with it. He declared that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

Watch 2 Supreme Court justices debate how the Constitution should be interpreted

In a 2009 conversation, former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer lay out competing approaches to constitutional interpretation: Scalia's textualist, strict constructionism versus Breyer's evolutionary view of the Constitution in practice.

The US framework of government has influenced the constitutions of many other countries

In 1787, the US Constitution introduced a system built on the separation of powers and individual liberties, including freedom of speech and religion. Though widely influential, its rigidity has made it less of a modern model as countries adopt more adaptable constitutional frameworks.

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The 1803 ruling empowered courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, permanently expanding the Supreme Court's authority and cementing its role as a coequal branch. This video explains the case and its lasting impact.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called states 'laboratories of democracy'

Louis Brandeis argued that federalism allows states to experiment with new policies without committing the entire nation, thereby allowing successful ideas to spread while limiting the risks of failure.

The separation of powers is a pivotal component of the US Constitution

Explore how the three branches interact through the Supreme Court case of US v. Alvarez. The Supreme Court first struck down a law, then Congress and the president later revised it—illustrating how judicial review can reshape legislation and executive action.

Explore the most impactful Supreme Court cases in US history

Browse by constitutional topic to explore key rulings, their historical impact, and the legal principles they established. Each case includes a summary of the decision, along with notable excerpts from majority and dissenting opinions.

Parliament is the supreme legal authority under the UK's constitutional system

The principle of "parliamentary sovereignty" holds that the UK Parliament can make or repeal any law, and that courts cannot invalidate its legislation. Judicial bodies can reshape governance, but parliamentary laws remain legally supreme.

Compare how justice ministries and courts are structured around the world

The Federal Judicial Center's "Judiciaries Worldwide" series provides clear and accessible comparisons of how various countries organize their justice ministries, prosecutors, courts, and judicial councils—emphasizing global models of independence, oversight, and institutional structure.

The Supreme Court's first major free-speech ruling rested on a legal standard that was later overturned

In Schenck v. United States (1919), the court introduced the "clear and present danger" test—permitting the government to restrict speech that posed an immediate threat to public safety. Although the doctrine was later replaced, the ruling upheld the conviction of a man who had distributed anti-draft pamphlets.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

Hear leading experts on constitutional law discuss the legacy and impact of Marshall

In this podcast, constitutional scholars Michael Gerhardt (University of North Carolina) and Kevin Walsh (University of Richmond) analyze Marshall's 34-year tenure, assessing his role in establishing judicial review, expanding federal power, and shaping the court's institutional authority.

Supreme Court justices serve for life

The Constitution grants Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments to shield them from electoral politics and outside pressure, a design meant to preserve judicial independence but now widely debated due to longer lifespans and partisan balances of the court.

The powers of the judicial branch have expanded since the nation's founding

Initially, the Supreme Court was seen as the weakest branch, lacking "the power of the sword or the purse," as Alexander Hamilton noted in *Federalist No. 78*. This podcast explores the political conflicts and pivotal decisions that transformed the court into the powerful constitutional authority it is today.

The Bill of Rights spent more than a century largely ignored by the courts

When ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, which exercised little direct control over daily life. It played a limited role in early constitutional law until the 20th century, when legal advocates began using it to challenge state and local laws.

The Supreme Court has greatly expanded executive power in recent years

In Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a former president enjoys absolute immunity for "official acts" in his constitutional core powers. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the court limited federal courts' ability to block executive enforcement through nationwide injunctions—decisions that shifted power toward the executive branch.

Immigration courts are part of the DOJ, not the judicial branch

Unlike federal courts, immigration courts operate under the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review—meaning immigration judges are DOJ employees, not independent judicial officers, and their decisions can be reviewed and overturned by the attorney general.

Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to abortion until Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned it

For decades, the Supreme Court shaped abortion access through constitutional rulings, from Roe's recognition of a right to abortion to Dobbs' returning regulatory power to the states. This explainer tracks key cases, impacts, and current justices' views.

Read through the actual text of the US Constitution

This helpful guide from the US Congress includes annotations that provide valuable insights into the background, crafting, and legacy of each article in the document. Additionally, the resource offers accessible legal analysis and interpretations.

The commerce clause gives the federal government authority to regulate interstate economic activity

This short constitutional provision has allowed Congress to regulate everything from wheat production to racial segregation, greatly expanding federal power by linking national authority to interstate economic activity.

Courts have blocked the Trump administration's 2025 executive order limiting birthright citizenship

In June 2025, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the order. Since then, two federal appellate courts have found the order unconstitutional, halting its enforcement nationwide.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court docket is poised to reshape presidential power

As the Supreme Court begins a new term, several major cases could define the scope of presidential authority. The court may rule on President Trump's efforts to control state National Guard units, fire independent officials, impose tariffs, and cut congressionally mandated federal spending.

Debating the Constitution today

The Constitution continues to shape our political and social life today. If you want to understand how today’s political debates connect to the Constitution, check out this podcast from the National Constitution Center. The weekly program features experts from diverse perspectives and explores how constitutional principles shape modern issues.

Grand juries investigate crimes and decide whether the government has enough evidence to charge someone

Unlike trial juries, which determine guilt, grand juries decide whether there is probable cause to bring charges at all. If they find enough evidence, they issue a formal indictment. Federal grand juries are enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

States are constitutionally mandated to draw their own congressional districts

Under Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution, state legislatures possess the authority to determine how congressional districts are drawn. However, Congress retains the power to alter these rules if it chooses to.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.

Constitutional originalism and living constitutionalism are the 2 main theories of interpretation

Hear from experts about originalism—the view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original public meaning—alongside its main counter-ideology, living constitutionalism, which argues that the document's meaning should evolve with changing social and legal norms.

The powers of local government are rooted in state law, not the Constitution

Unlike the federal government or the states, local governments have no constitutional standing—they exist only because state law allows them to. A state legislature can redraw a city's boundaries, strip its powers, or dissolve it entirely.

The 1935 Social Security Act drew inspiration from European social insurance models

Many of these, such as German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's 1889 retirement system, emerged decades before America adopted them. This article dives into the modern history of economic security and the key legislation that created Social Security.

The US Constitution is widely regarded as the longest-standing written national constitution still in force—see how it has influenced rights worldwide.

This interactive tool from the National Constitution Center allows you to compare constitutional rights globally, highlighting which countries have adopted protections similar to those in the US Constitution—and how shared principles manifest in different legal forms around the world.

In the SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to seek civil penalties for securities fraud in-house, which significantly scaled back the agency's enforcement capabilities.

Explore the world's oldest constitutions

The 1789 US Constitution remains the oldest active written national constitution. Older systems exist—such as San Marino’s statutes or the Magna Carta—but they are not single, codified constitutions. See how other countries compare in this visualization.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) created a 3-part test for church-state entanglement

In this case, the Supreme Court established a three-part test—requiring a secular purpose, no advancement of religion, and avoidance of excessive entanglement—for laws concerning the Establishment Clause. The test was later effectively sidelined in recent rulings.

John Marshall strengthened the Supreme Court and national authority

As chief justice, John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. He reinforced federal supremacy in key cases, defining the Supreme Court as a powerful arbiter between states and the national government under the US federal system.

Explore jury nullification, the little-known power that lets jurors ignore the law and acquit anyway

When jurors disagree with a law, they can simply vote to acquit regardless of the evidence; however, this practice is rare, and the legal system actively discourages it. This podcast traces its history from a Quaker prayer meeting in London to the LA riots.

Photography and video are prohibited in the Supreme Court—but artists are not

Because cameras are banned inside the Supreme Court of the United States, courtroom artists document proceedings through sketches. This exhibition features works from 1964 to today, capturing the human drama of landmark cases and shaping how Americans visualize justice.

The ways Bauhaus still shapes modern life

The German art school was around for less than 15 years, but its aesthetic and philosophy can still be seen today in sleek, minimalist design, bold typefaces, and even the corporate aesthetics of IKEA, Apple, and other brands. This DW feature visits the schools that have taken up the Bauhaus legacy, using its ideas to tackle contemporary problems.

The supremacy clause establishes federal law as the highest authority

The supremacy clause states that the United States Constitution and federal laws enacted under it supersede conflicting state laws, ensuring national authority prevails when federal and state governments disagree.

Explore the specific authorities granted to Congress: the 'enumerated powers'

The Constitution grants Congress a list of powers—including taxing, regulating interstate commerce, and declaring war—while powers not explicitly listed are reserved to the states or the people, defining the federal government's scope of authority.

Experts believe a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship is likely in 2026

In September 2025, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings striking down its executive order on birthright citizenship. If the court takes the case, a decision is expected by mid-2026.

Bauhaus' biggest contributions to modern architecture

Walk around almost any major metropolitan area, and you'll see Bauhaus' influence in the glass facades, tubular steel, and windows offering ample natural light. This ArchDaily explainer illustrates those concepts through iconic Bauhaus buildings, such as the Gropius House, along with detailed diagrams of their design.

Congressional committees quietly shape most legislation

This video explains how 20 congressional committees—standing, select, and conference—perform much of Congress's work, from drafting legislation and holding hearings to overseeing executive branch agencies.

The Supreme Court has never definitively settled federal war powers

Despite more than two centuries of conflict over war powers, the Supreme Court has consistently avoided defining the precise boundary between congressional and executive authority, leaving that boundary to be contested by the political branches.