The question of whether the United States Supreme Court can settle legal and moral issues through judicial review is complex and lies at the heart of ongoing debates about the nature of law, the role of the judiciary, and the balance of power in a democracy.

What is Judicial Review?

Judicial review, established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), is the power of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) to determine whether acts of the legislative and executive branches of government comply with the U.S. Constitution. If an act is found to be unconstitutional, it is declared void. This power ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and acts as a check on the other branches.

The Interplay of Legal and Moral Issues:

While judicial review is fundamentally a legal process of constitutional interpretation, it frequently involves cases with profound moral implications. The Constitution itself contains broad principles and rights (e.g., due process, equal protection, freedom of speech, cruel and unusual punishment) that are open to interpretation and touch upon societal values and ethical considerations.

• Legal Issues: The Court’s primary function is to interpret the law. This involves analyzing the text of the Constitution, statutory language, legislative history, and relevant precedents. For example, determining whether a specific law violates the Commerce Clause or whether a search was conducted lawfully are distinctly legal questions.

• Moral Issues: Many landmark Supreme Court cases have undeniably dealt with issues that are deeply intertwined with morality, such as:

  • Slavery and Civil Rights: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) involved the morality of slavery, while Brown v. Board of Education (1954) addressed racial segregation. These cases, while couched in legal terms, profoundly impacted the moral fabric of the nation.
  • Reproductive Rights: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) are stark examples of cases where legal interpretation directly engages with deeply held moral beliefs about life and bodily autonomy.
  • Marriage Equality: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, reflecting an evolving societal understanding of equality and human dignity.
  • Death Penalty: Cases concerning the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment grapple with the morality of capital punishment.

Can the Supreme Court “Settle” Moral Issues?

This is where the debate intensifies.

Arguments that the Court does (and perhaps must) engage with moral issues:

• Interpretation of Broad Constitutional Principles: The Constitution’s framers used expansive language (e.g., “liberty,” “due process,” “equal protection”) that requires the Court to infuse meaning into these concepts. This often necessitates drawing upon societal values, ethical considerations, and evolving understandings of justice.
• Protection of Minority Rights: In a democracy, the majority can sometimes infringe upon the rights of minorities. The judiciary, as an unelected body, is seen by some as uniquely positioned to protect fundamental rights, even if doing so runs counter to popular opinion or the prevailing moral consensus of the moment. This can involve making what are, in effect, moral judgments about fundamental human dignity and equality.
• “Living Constitution” Philosophy: Proponents of this view argue that the Constitution is a dynamic document whose meaning evolves with society. This approach implicitly acknowledges that new moral understandings can and should influence judicial interpretation.

Arguments that the Court should not (or cannot) truly “settle” moral issues:

• Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty: Judges are unelected and serve for life. When they strike down laws passed by elected representatives based on their interpretation of the Constitution’s broad principles, it can be seen as undermining democratic self-governance. Critics argue that moral issues are best decided through the legislative process, which is accountable to the people.
• Lack of Democratic Mandate: The Supreme Court is a legal institution, not a moral arbiter. Its legitimacy derives from its adherence to legal principles, not from its ability to dictate public morality. If it is perceived as imposing its own moral views, its authority can be undermined.
• Indeterminacy of Moral Standards: Unlike legal texts which provide some concrete boundaries, “morality” is subjective and diverse. There is no single, universally agreed-upon moral code for the Court to apply. Relying heavily on moral judgments can lead to accusations of judicial activism and arbitrariness.
• Focus on Law, Not Ethics: Many legal scholars and judges argue for a stricter adherence to originalism or textualism, where the Court’s role is to interpret the law as it was understood at the time of its adoption or as it is written, rather than to engage in a broader moral inquiry. They believe that introducing explicit moral judgments beyond what is clearly expressed in the law blurs the lines of judicial function.
• “Settle” vs. “Address”: While the Court can issue legally binding rulings on cases that involve moral issues, it often doesn’t “settle” the underlying moral debates in society. For example, Roe v. Wade did not end the moral debate over abortion; it merely set legal parameters. Dobbs demonstrated this by overturning Roe, returning the moral and legal question to the states.

Conclusion:

The U.S. Supreme Court, through judicial review, undeniably addresses legal cases that are deeply imbued with moral considerations. In interpreting broad constitutional provisions, the justices inevitably bring their own understandings of justice, fairness, and fundamental rights to bear, which are influenced by their moral frameworks. In this sense, they contribute to the ongoing evolution of societal morality as reflected in law.

However, the Court cannot definitively “settle” moral issues in the same way it might settle a legal dispute over contract terms. Moral issues are complex, often deeply personal, and continually debated in society. While a Supreme Court ruling creates legal precedent that must be followed, it does not necessarily erase fundamental disagreements or change deeply held ethical convictions. Its power is to interpret law, even when that law touches upon profound moral questions, and to define the boundaries of government action in relation to individual rights and societal values within the constitutional framework. The tension between legal interpretation and moral implications remains a defining characteristic of American constitutional law.