Article III supports independence by giving federal judges tenure during good behavior and protecting their compensation from reduction while they remain in office. Those safeguards reduce the danger that a judge will lose a job or salary for issuing an unpopular ruling. Judicial independence is not permission to decide according to personal preference. It is designed to make faithful legal judgment more possible. Courts remain limited by jurisdiction, proper cases and controversies, legal reasoning, and the remedies available in a particular dispute.

Hamilton also offered a classic defense of judicial review. A written constitution is fundamental law adopted by the people. An ordinary statute is an act of the people's legislative agents. When the two conflict, a court deciding a case should apply the higher law-the Constitution-rather than the inconsistent statute. In Hamilton's account, this does not place judges above the legislature or above the people. It places the people's fundamental constitutional decision above a later act of their agents. Judicial independence helps courts perform that task without fear of retaliation from the political branches.

Use the clues carefully. Life tenure, protected compensation, judgment rather than force or money, higher law, and refusal to enforce an unconstitutional statute point toward No. 78. Speed, unity, and visible responsibility point toward No. 70. Institutional ambition checking another branch points toward No. 51. The Federalist essay explains the logic of judicial independence and review, but it is not itself the source of every modern doctrine. The Constitution, later amendments, jurisdictional statutes, and judicial precedents determine how federal courts operate in particular settings.

Video lesson: The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8