Judicial review differs from judicial supremacy as a broad political claim. A court's constitutional holding binds the parties and guides later cases under the system of precedent, but every branch must interpret the Constitution when performing its own duties. Courts also remain institutionally limited. They cannot initiate legislation, command appropriations on their own, or answer abstract constitutional questions outside proper litigation. Judicial authority is strongest when a concrete dispute requires a legal judgment and weakest when the requested decision would turn the court into a general supervisor of politics.

The remedy depends on the case. A court may refuse to enforce a statute, reverse a conviction, enjoin unlawful action against a party, or declare legal rights. Congress may respond to a statutory interpretation by amending the statute within constitutional limits. It cannot reverse a constitutional holding merely by reenacting the same conflict, though it may propose a constitutional amendment or change surrounding law. The executive ordinarily carries judgments into effect, and Congress funds the courts and structures lower federal jurisdiction within constitutional boundaries. Independence therefore coexists with institutional dependence.

Do not confuse judicial review with appellate review. A trial court can conduct constitutional review in a case within its jurisdiction, and an appellate court can hear an appeal without finding any law unconstitutional. Nor is every interbranch disagreement a judicial-review question. A Senate confirmation vote or congressional hearing may involve constitutional judgment without being adjudication. Look for a court, a proper case, a claim of higher-law conflict, and a judicial remedy.

Video lesson: Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21