The Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy: Reassessing the Role of Courts in a Constitutional Democracy

Introduction

In democratic systems, the judiciary is seen as a key safeguard of constitutional principles. Courts, particularly in constitutional democracies, have the critical responsibility of interpreting and upholding the Constitution, ensuring the protection of individual rights and resolving disputes. The concept of judicial supremacy – the idea that courts hold the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation – has been a foundational aspect of many legal systems. However, as democracy evolves, so too does the ongoing debate about the appropriate limits of judicial power. Judicial supremacy raises significant questions: Should courts have the final say in interpreting the Constitution? How does the concentration of interpretive power in the hands of unelected judges align with democratic principles? Can judicial supremacy, in its current form, inadvertently weaken the democratic processes it is meant to protect? This article critically reassesses the doctrine of judicial supremacy, examining its theoretical foundations, real-world applications, and the challenges it faces in contemporary democracies. It argues that while judicial supremacy plays a crucial role in safeguarding constitutional rights, it needs reform to better balance judicial authority with democratic accountability. 

The Theoretical Foundations of Judicial Supremacy 

Judicial supremacy is a central tenet in American constitutional law, closely linked to judicial review, which grants the judiciary the power to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. This was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice Marshall asserted, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This ruling set the foundation for judicial supremacy, confirming the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional principles by overseeing legislative and executive actions. At the core of judicial supremacy is constitutionalism, which asserts the Constitution is the supreme law, and government actions must align with it. Judicial review enables courts to invalidate laws or actions that violate the Constitution. Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison emphasized that the judiciary's role is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, preventing overreach by other branches. Judicial supremacy is grounded in the separation of powers, ensuring no branch becomes too dominant. The judiciary’s role as the final interpreter of the Constitution relies on its independence from political influence. Marshall stressed that decisions must be based on constitutional principles, not political motives, making judicial independence crucial for impartial constitutional interpretation. The importance of judicial independence is highlighted in The Federalist Papers, where Alexander Hamilton argues the judiciary must be free from political interference to fulfill its constitutional role. Scholars like Steven G. Calabresi also examine the tension between judicial supremacy and democratic legitimacy, debating the scope of judicial review.

Relational Dynamics: Victims and Criminal Justice

A. Intentions of Criminal Law 

The rationale behind punishment should determine who administers it. Criminal procedure seems disconnected from the moral objectives of criminal law, which are inherently relational – such as providing an outlet for anger or expressing condemnation. These objectives involve the victim. However, prosecutions are conducted in the name of the state, leaving the victim out of the process. As a result, the system becomes a contest between the defendant and the state, neglecting the most crucial stakeholder.

B. Who is Harmed

Crimes harm victims – a point overlooked in legal discourse. The American adversarial system, which pits the state against the defendant, is depersonalized and operates within a broad framework. Criminal prosecutions are conducted in the name of the people, not individual victims. Victims are generally excluded from initiating legal actions or influencing prosecutorial decisions. While some states grant victims notification rights during the criminal process, these often fail to allow meaningful input. For example, victims may be notified when a plea agreement is reached but cannot influence the agreement or veto it. Victims' voices are often marginalized at sentencing, by which time plea deals have been finalized.When the state fails to uphold these rights, victims have few mechanisms for enforcement. Taking victims' rights seriously does not require a punitive approach. The debate about criminal justice is often reduced to a binary between victims and defendants. Some advocates misuse victims' rights to push for punitive measures like mandatory minimums or three-strikes laws, which focus on punishment rather than reform. The true issue is not the severity of punishment, but the agency of victims in the legal process. Victims have a legitimate stake in the criminal justice system and deserve a meaningful voice in proceedings that affect their lives.

C. Inconsideration of Ethics

As legal professionals take charge, victims frequently lack a voice in the criminal justice system. While they excel at navigating complex legal rules, this expertise can sometimes result in victims feeling sidelined. Although legal professionals' knowledge of standard punishments helps prevent arbitrary decisions, criminal justice is not solely about imposing harsh penalties efficiently. It is morally charged and reflects society’s ethical values. As Michael Moore argues, the concept of criminal law inherently involves placing blame, which is fundamental to our understanding of justice and should not be stripped from the system entirely. Hogan compellingly suggests that criminal justice should be more personal, focusing on repairing the harm caused by crime and addressing the impact directly felt by victims. The immorality of the current system lies in its focus on punishment, often neglecting the emotional and social damage done to victims. A more personal approach would shift the focus from retribution to restoration, recognizing that justice should also heal the victim’s harm. This challenges the traditional system, which treats crimes as violations of the law rather than violations of individuals' lives, urging a more ethical and empathetic approach to justice.

Criticisms of Judicial Supremacy: Populist Movements and Anti-Judiciary Sentiment

In recent years, populist movements have intensified their criticisms of judicial supremacy, arguing that it undermines democratic principles by concentrating power in the hands of unelected judges. Figures like Senator Josh Hawley have voiced strong opposition to judicial overreach, calling for reforms such as judicial term limits and restricting federal court jurisdiction. They argue that the judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution should not override the will of elected representatives. High profile judicial decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015) and abortion rights (e.g., Roe v. Wade), have fueled populist discontent. For example, President Donald Trump criticized the courts during his administration, targeting judges who ruled against his executive orders, framing them as obstacles to his populist agenda. Internationally, leaders like like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Polish President Andrzeg Duda have sought to limit judicial independence, arguing that courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, should not impose rulings contrary to national sovereignty. This reflects a broader populist sentiment that unelected judges threaten the democratic process by overstepping their constitutional roles. 

Legal scholars and philosophers, particularly within the American Legal Realism tradition, have long criticized judicial supremacy for the risks it poses to democratic decision-making. Legal Realists argue that judges, even when operating under the guise of impartiality, are influenced by personal biases, social contexts, and political considerations, which can result in rulings that override the will of the people. Scholars like Jerome Frank and Karl Llewellyn, key figures in Legal Realism, contend that legal decisions are not purely objective interpretations of the law but are shaped by the lived experiences and values of judges. Frank, for example, argued that the unpredictability of judicial decisions reflects the influence of personal judgment rather than strict adherence to law, highlighting concerns that judicial supremacy allows unelected judges to make decisions with significant social and political implications, potentially undermining democratic processes. Additionally, Ronald Dworkin’s theory of Law as Integrity critiques judicial supremacy from a philosophical standpoint, asserting that judges should interpret the law in ways that align with moral principles and public values. While Dworkin acknowledges the role of judges in interpreting the Constitution, he suggests that judicial decisions must be rooted in a broader commitment to democratic legitimacy. This ongoing debate reveals the tension between judicial power and democratic values, prompting further reflection on the balance between judicial independence and public accountability.

The Practical Role of Courts in Contemporary Democracies

A. Judicial Engagement vs. Judicial Restraint

The debate between judicial engagement and judicial restraint concerns the appropriate role of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution. Judicial engagement refers to a more active judiciary that interprets the law with a broad view of constitutional rights, often extending protection and intervening in areas where elected branches might resist change. Proponents argue that an active judiciary is necessary to protect minority rights, challenge unjust laws, and ensure government accountability. In contrast, judicial restraint emphasizes judicial deference, asserting that courts should avoid striking down laws unless there is a clear constitutional violation, leaving controversial decisions to the legislative and executive branches. Judicial engagement advocates, Judge J. Harvie Wilkison, argue that courts must sometimes make tough decisions that the political branches avoid, especially in cases that protect the marginalized. On the other judicial restraint proponents, like Alexander Bickel in The Least Dangerous Branch, stress the need for judicial modesty ensuring that courts do not substitute their judgement for that of democratically elected representatives. This debate is critical as it impacts the court’s approach to constitutional interpretation, including whether it embraces an originalist interpretation or existing constitutionalism. 

B. Case Study: Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) is one of the most controversial instances of judicial engagement in recent history. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, asserting that restrictions on political spending violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The Court’s interpretation expanded the definition of political speech to include corporate spending, effectively allowing corporations to become powerful players in electoral politics. Critics, including Justice John Paul Stevens, argue that the decision undermines democracy by granting corporations disproportionate influence over the political process, threatening the principle of one person, one vote. Justice Stevens’ dissent warned that the ruling could lead to corruption by subverting the public’s influence over elected officials. Theodore Roosevelt, and later figures such as Bernie Sanders, have argued that corporate money threatens the integrity of American democracy, favoring the interests of the wealthy over average citizens. Supporters of Citizens United, however, argue that it was a necessary defense of free speech. Justice Antonin Scalia believed that restricting corporate spending violates the core principles of the First Amendment, asserting that political speech should be free from government interference. According to these views, the ruling protects the fundamental democratic right to free expression, regardless of the speaker’s identity or wealth. This decision highlights the ongoing tension between judicial engagement and judicial restraint, with critics of Citizens United arguing for a more cautious, restrained role for the judiciary in protecting democratic integrity, while supporters view it as a necessary defense of First Amendment rights and individual freedoms. 

C. Court-Packing Debate

The court-packing debate centers on proposals to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, a practice famously associated with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 proposal. Roosevelt’s plan aimed to add justices in response to the Court blocking his New Deal programs, which sought to address the Great Depression. While Roosevelt’s plan failed, the issue resurfaced during President Donald Trump’s administration, when Republican senators blocked President Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland and later confirmed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. In 2021, President Joe Biden appointed a commission to explore court-packing reforms. Supporters of court-packing argue that the current Court’s conservative majority, solidified during Trump’s presidency, reflects a political imbalance no longer aligned with public opinion. Figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocate for expanding the Court to restore balance and protect democratic values. On the other hand, opponents, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, contend that adding justices would undermine the judiciary's independence, turning it into a political tool for whichever party holds power. The debate raises critical questions about the balance between democratic accountability and judicial independence, directly tying into the broader discussion of judicial engagement vs. judicial restraint. Advocates of court-packing, such as Warren and Ocasio-Cortez, view the judiciary as a reflection of political shifts and societal changes, aligning judicial interpretation with public opinion – a hallmark of judicial engagement. Conversely, opponents like McConnell and Ginsburg argue that the Court must remain insulated from political pressures, ensuring that constitutional interpretation is based solely on legal reasoning, not political expediency. Their position aligns with judicial restraint, emphasizing the importance of an impartial and independent judiciary, free from partisan influence.

While both sides of the court-packing debate present valid points, the core issue lies in defining the judiciary's role in a modern democracy. Advocates like Warren and Ocasio-Cortez highlight the Court’s conservative majority as out of step with public opinion, but expanding the Court risks politicizing the judiciary and undermining the separation of powers. The Court’s independence is crucial to prevent political expediency from shaping constitutional interpretation, as McConnell and Ginsburg argue. However, judicial restraint, though essential for impartiality, can also hinder progress and fail to adapt to societal changes. A more balanced approach might focus on reforming the judicial nomination process to ensure transparency and accountability, ensuring the Court remains independent while remaining responsive to society’s evolving needs.

Judicial Supremacy and Public Opinion

The concept of judicial supremacy assumes that courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have the final authority on constitutional matters, and their decisions are binding on elected officials. However, judicial supremacy faces challenges from public opinion and democratic principles. The judiciary's legitimacy and authority depend, to some extent, on public trust. This section explores how public opinion influences judicial decisions, the relationship between public trust and judicial independence, and the impact of the confirmation process.

Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping judicial decisions, even in a system designed to protect judges from political pressures. While courts are intended to be independent from the political branches, the legitimacy of judicial decisions often depends on whether they align with public values and expectations. As the Supreme Court addresses politically contentious issues, like abortion and civil rights, its decisions are scrutinized by the public and can have significant societal impacts. In landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court's rulings reflected broader shifts in public opinion toward racial equality and LGBTQ rights.

Legal scholars like Ginsburg and William Rehnquist have acknowledged the influence of public opinion on the Court’s decisions. While judicial independence is essential, public acceptance shapes the perceived legitimacy and adherence to rulings. The role of public trust is crucial to the judiciary’s effectiveness, especially since the legislature and executive are accountable to voters. A decline in public trust can lead to questions about the Court's ability to interpret the law fairly. Studies by organizations like The Pew Charitable Trusts show that public confidence in the Supreme Court fluctuates after high-profile decisions, such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), reflecting concerns about partisanship and the politicization of the judiciary.

Judicial review and judicial supremacy are questioned when decisions appear out of step with public opinion. Robert Dahl, in Decision-Making in a Democracy, argues that the Supreme Court can only effectively check government power when it enjoys substantial public trust. Without this trust, the Court risks undermining its authority.

The confirmation process for federal judges, especially Supreme Court nominees, has become increasingly politicized, with significant consequences for judicial legitimacy. Since the contentious Bork nomination in 1987, the process has turned into a political battleground, with Senators using ideological litmus tests to assess nominees based on their political views rather than their qualifications. This practice has deepened the politicization of judicial appointments, as senators prioritise party alignment over impartial legal interpretation, further eroding the judiciary's independence. This has led to perceptions that judges are not neutral but partisan actors reflecting the President’s views. The highly partisan confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 highlighted this trend. Confirmation hearings often focus on a nominee’s legal decisions and ideological leanings, prioritizing party interests over the Court's institutional integrity.

This politicization raises concerns among scholars like Dahlia Lithwick, who argue that it undermines judicial independence, turning the Court into a political instrument. As the confirmation process faces more political and public scrutiny, the legitimacy of the judiciary is questioned. Some scholars, such as Stephen Breyer, argue for reforms to ensure judicial independence while maintaining public trust.

Judicial supremacy remains a cornerstone of constitutional law, but its effectiveness is tied to public trust in the judiciary. Public opinion, the perception of impartiality, and the politicized confirmation process all influence the Court’s authority. While judicial decisions have the final say in constitutional interpretation, they remain subject to scrutiny and challenge based on their alignment with public values. This tension between judicial independence and public opinion underscores the need for a balanced approach to judicial decision-making, ensuring courts remain both independent and accountable.

Reforms to Judicial Supremacy

​​While judicial independence is vital for upholding the rule of law, it is essential to balance this independence with democratic accountability. Critics argue that an unchecked judiciary can undermine democratic principles, especially when unelected judges make decisions with significant political and social consequences.

A. Balancing Judicial Authority with Democratic Accountability

Judicial independence is essential for impartial rulings, but reforms are needed to keep courts aligned with democratic values. One proposed reform is judicial term limits, which would prevent ideological entrenchment and ensure courts reflect evolving societal values. Lawrence Baum and Neal Devins argue that such reforms help courts stay responsive to public needs. Another key reform is increased transparency in judicial decision-making. As the OECD reviews, by providing clearer explanations for rulings, especially in high-profile cases, courts could boost public trust by showing that decisions are based on law, not political bias.

B. The Case for Judicial Oversight

Judicial oversight can check the judiciary's power while preserving its independence. This would involve reviewing the broader impact of high-profile decisions, not interfering with individual rulings. Some scholars propose an independent oversight body to assess major court decisions, ensuring they align with constitutional principles and societal values. Robert Dahl argues that public confidence in the judiciary is crucial, and oversight mechanisms could help maintain it. Additionally, a more active legislative role in judicial appointments would ensure nominees are evaluated for both legal qualifications and their alignment with democratic values. Martha Minnow and Stephen Breyer stress the importance of balancing judicial independence with public accountability. Building on this, reforms such as judicial term limits, increased transparency, and oversight are necessary to ensure courts reflect societal values and maintain public trust. These changes can prevent ideological entrenchment and protect the judiciary’s legitimacy, but they must be carefully designed to avoid politicization. A balanced approach is essential to maintaining both judicial independence and democratic principles.

The Future of Judicial Supremacy in an Evolving Democracy

As democratic societies evolve, so too does the role of judicial supremacy in interpreting constitutional law. In the 21st century, challenges to judicial review have emerged as political polarization increases, creating tensions between judicial decisions and public opinion. Some critics argue that judicial review, while essential for protecting rights, can also become a tool of judicial overreach, particularly when decisions diverge from the evolving values of society. Cass Sunstein suggests that judicial decisions must adapt to contemporary norms to remain legitimate, highlighting the increasing disconnect between the judiciary and public opinion in cases such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which sparked widespread criticism for its implications on campaign finance and democratic integrity. In this evolving landscape, the role of international courts and global legal norms has also gained prominence. As globalization fosters interconnectedness, international legal bodies such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the European Court of Human Rights influence the development of constitutional law. Mary Ann Glendon argues that international legal principles should guide national judicial review to ensure human rights protections align with global standards, preventing isolationist tendencies in constitutional interpretation. Similarly, David Kennedy emphasizes that global legal norms provide a framework for judicial decisions that protect universal human rights, expanding the scope of judicial review beyond national boundaries. Evolving norms surrounding democracy and public participation also shape the future of judicial supremacy. Dahl emphasizes that a democracy cannot function properly without public trust in its institutions, including the judiciary. If judicial decisions increasingly appear disconnected from societal values, they risk eroding public trust and legitimacy. Jeremy Waldron further suggests that judicial decisions must engage with the democratic process, ensuring that the public's evolving values are reflected in legal interpretations. 

Conclusion

The doctrine of judicial supremacy has long been a cornerstone of constitutional democracies, safeguarding the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights. Yet, as societies progress and face new challenges, questions about the role of the judiciary in shaping public policy become increasingly complex. The tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability has never been more pronounced, with shifting public opinions, political polarization, and global legal trends influencing the judicial landscape. To ensure that the judiciary remains an impartial guardian of the Constitution while remaining responsive to the democratic will, reforms are necessary. By striking a careful balance between independence and accountability, the future of judicial supremacy can be shaped in a way that strengthens both the integrity of the judiciary and the democratic principles it aims to protect.

Kaila Nkufo

Bibliography

Table of Cases 

Griswold v. Connecticut, 540 US 93 (1965)

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 567 US 519 (2012) 

Obergefell v Hodges (2015) 576 US 644.

Roe v Wade (1973) 410 US 113.

Primary Sources

The Federalist Papers, No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton)

Secondary Sources 

‘Antonin Scalia' (First Amendment Encyclopedia) https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/antonin-scalia/ accessed 23 March 2025.

'FDR Court-Packing Controversy' (Supreme Court Historical Society) https://supremecourthistory.org/films/fdr-courtpacking-controversy-full-script/ accessed 23 March 2025.

ABC News, 'Trump Administration Ramps Up Rhetoric Targeting Courts Amid Mounting Legal Challenges' (ABC News, 5 November 2020) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-administration-ramps-rhetoric-targeting-courts-amid-mounting-119847768 accessed 19 March 2025.

Aldrich DP, 'The Role of Courts in Promoting Public Trust' in Michael A. Tushnet and others (eds), Public Trust and the Courts (Oxford University Press 2024)

Bickel A, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (1962)

Bork RH., The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (Free Press, 1990).

Budd KM. and others, Beyond Bars: A Path Forward from 50 years of Mass Incarceration in the United States  (Policy Press 2023).

Cahn RC, 'Restoring Public Trust in the Judiciary: A Case for Judicial Reform' (2010) 33 Seattle University Law Review 695

Calabresi SG., Judicial Supremacy and the Problem of Judicial Review (Yale University Press, 1998).

Carpenter D, "Judicial Supremacy and Its Discontents" (2003). Constitutional Commentary. 153

Dahl RA , 'The Supreme Court and National Policy Making' (1957) American Political Science Review

Daly K, 'A Tale of Two Studies: Restorative Justice from a Victim's Perspective' (2009)

Dixon GJ and Stephens K, 'The Role of Judicial Review in Australia's Constitutional System' (2014)

Frank J, Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice (Princeton University Press 1949).

French D, 'Judicial Engagement vs. Judicial Restraint' (2021) City Journal https://www.city-journal.org/article/judicial-engagement-v-judicial-restraint accessed 23 March 2025.

Glendon MA, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2001) https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/c8d0e8bc-a0e1-4ad4-9775-c212e90c7230 accessed 23 March 2025.

Greene J , 'Selling Originalism' (2009)

Greve JE , 'Biden Creates Commission to Explore Expanding the Supreme Court' (The Guardian, 9 April 2021) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/09/joe-biden-supreme-court-expansion-commission-reform accessed 23 March 2025.

Hamer D, 'Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability in Australia' (2007) 12 Deakin Law Review 73 https://www4.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/2007/5.pdf accessed 23 March 2025.

Harlan, J. (1966) ‘The Role of the Judiciary in the Governmental System’ 75 Yale Law Journal 672

Hogan D, 'Restorative Justice and the Role of the Victim' (2013)

Human Rights Watch, 'Hungary’s Latest Assault on the Judiciary' (Human Rights Watch, 14 December 2018) https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/14/hungarys-latest-assault-judiciary accessed 20 March 2025.

L. H. Tribe, A World Made New: A Global History of the United Nations (University of Washington Press, 2009) http://courses.washington.edu/lsj434/documents/A_World_Made_New.pdf accessed 23 March 2025.

Marko A, 'Legal Realism and the Predictability of Judicial Decisions' (2023) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380455571_Legal_Realism_and_the_Predictability_of_Judicial_Decisionsaccessed 23 March 2025.

McCormick SR, 'The Case for Judicial Engagement' (2009) Expresso

McDonald DB, 'The Role of Public Policy in Constitutional Law' (2017) William & Mary Law School Faculty Publications

Michelman FI, The Dignity of Legislation (2023

Minow M, When Should Law Forgive? (Oxford University Press 2019)

Moore MS., 'Placing Blame: A Theory of Criminal Law' (Oxford University Press 1997) 33

Nance L, The Crime Victims' Rights Act: A Legislative History (Harvard University Press 2012).

National Constitution Center, 'On This Day: Senate Rejects Robert Bork for the Supreme Court' (National Constitution Center, 23 March 2025) https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-senate-rejects-robert-bork-for-the-supreme-courtaccessed 23 March 2025.

Nazneen S and Lewin T, 'The Loss of Roe v. Wade Is a Dark Time for Rights' (Institute of Development Studies, 27 June 2022) https://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/the-loss-of-roe-vs-wade-is-a-dark-time-for-rights/ accessed 18 March 2025.

O’Neill JP, 'The Legal Implications of Judicial Activism' (2013) Tulsa Law Reviewhttps://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2839&context=tlr accessed 23 March 2025.

Ombres D, Sheth J, and Olinsky B, 'Combining Ethics and Term Limits Strengthens Efforts to Rein in a Supreme Court Run Amok' (Center for American Progress, 25 July 2024) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/combining-ethics-and-term-limits-strengthens-efforts-to-rein-in-a-supreme-court-run-amok/ accessed 20 March 2025.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust (OECD Publishing 2017) https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2017/03/trust-and-public-policy_g1g74ea6/9789264268920-en.pdf accessed March 23rd, 2025,

 Parry JT, 'Front Matter' (2017) https://assets.cambridge.org/97811076/44786/frontmatter/9781107644786_frontmatter.pdf accessed 23 March 2025.

Pew Research Center, 'Americans' Deepening Mistrust of Institutions' (Fall 2024) https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024/americans-deepening-mistrust-of-institutions accessed 23 March 2025.

Pozen DE , 'The Irony of Judicial Review' (2016)

R RD., 'Judicial Independence and Judicial Review' (2013) 74 Journal of Law and Politics 111

Rehnquist WH, 'Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist' (The University of Arizona) https://law.arizona.edu/faculty-research/centers-research/rehnquist-center/chief-justice-william-h-rehnquist accessed 23 March 2025.

Somin I, 'A Case for Judicial Engagement' (2012) William & Mary Law Review Online

Sunstein CR., One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (1999)

Transcript: My interview with Justice John Paul Stevens' (ABC News, 1 September 2011) https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/transcript-my-interview-with-justice-john-paul-stevens accessed 23 March 2025.

Tushnet M, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (1999)

Walker S, 'Poland’s President Signs Controversial Law Despite Protests' (The Guardian, 25 July 2017) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/25/polands-president-signs-controversial-law-despite-protests accessed 23 March 2025.

Warren E, 'In Op-Ed, Senator Warren Calls for Supreme Court Expansion to Protect Democracy and Restore Independent Judiciary' (Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren, 8 April 2021) https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/in-op-ed-senator-warren-calls-for-supreme-court-expansion-to-protect-democracy-and-restore-independent-judiciary accessed 23 March 2025.