When Should Courts Invalidate Constitutional Amendments?

Abstract

Courts having the ability to invalidate procedurally correct constitutional amendments for violating core democratic or constitutional values is a growing practice in global constitutionalism. However, this power is generally exercised by courts on a whim and very often without any textual basis. Such actions raise serious legitimacy concerns and can undermine efforts towards regular constitutional change. In extreme cases, this power has been wielded by courts in ways that contribute to democratic backsliding rather than its prevention. Few solutions to police this power of courts and prevent net negatives exist. These solutions either fall short of addressing the challenges of courts invalidating procedurally correct constitutional amendments or rely heavily on judges’ restraint and good faith, qualities which we struggle to see in many jurisdictions where courts exercise this power. In turn, this article outlines a template for courts to use when evaluating the validity of procedurally correct constitutional amendments. This article’s suggested template hopes to prevent courts from misusing their powers while still leaving sufficient room for them to act to prevent threats to a polity’s democratic and/or constitutional project. It aims to do so by reducing the subjective discretion available to judges relative to other available templates.

Keywords: Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment, Basic Structure Doctrine, Constitutional Courts, Judicial Review, Constituent Power Theory