Are federal courts imperial or are they merely handsmaidens to the elected branches of government? In what respects does the federal judiciary still play any sorts of “checks and balances” role?

Question

Are the federal courts imperial, or are they merely handmaidens to the elected branches of government? The federal judiciary has a history of approving executive and legislative restrictions on the civil liberties during wars and other threats to national security. in the years following Roe v. Wade (1973), which voided state laws prohibiting abortion, The Supreme Court has approved many efforts by the state legislators to restrict abortion. The present supreme court justices have endorsed almost all efforts by state governments to expand their power over accused persons, despite 1960s cases protecting them. The justices have also seemingly endorsed capital punishment. in what respect to the federal judiciary still play any sort of “checks and balances” role?

Answer 1

To address your first question, the common historical reference point for this would be the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled, essentially, that the Indian Removal Act was unconstitutional and thus the Federal Government must cease their operations under that law. President Andrew Jackson is apocryphally said to have replied: "John Marshall (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time) has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Thus, there are often conflicts between the decisions of a court and the actual implementation of those decisions. To turn to your second question regarding Roe v. Wade, the Court in that decision established a highly structured approach to when states may interfere with a woman's right to undergo an abortion. States that wished to create abortion laws post-Roe generally made their new laws as restrictive as they wanted while still staying within the bounds of Roe's guidelines for federal intervention. For instance, some states established building codes for businesses administering medical services that regulated hallway widths. These restrictions have widely been viewed as attempts to limit abortion providers based on their preexisting infrastructure (many abortions are out-patient procedures, so don't require advanced medical infrastructure such as hallways that can admit a gurney in both directions simultaneously). Finally, the role of federal courts as checks and balances throughout the US is complex, and includes many courts beside the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court may appear derelict in their Constitutional duties at times, it is important to remember that they are only a small proportion of the federal judiciary system.