Judicial deference

Judicial deference is the condition of a court yielding or submitting its judgment to that of another legitimate party, such as the

executive branch in the case of national defense. It is most commonly found in countries, such as the United Kingdom, which lack an entrenched constitution, as the essential purpose of such documents is to limit the power of the legislature

.

United Kingdom

In Regina v. Director of Public Prosecutions Ex Parte Kebeline and Others [1999],

British Parliament to uphold the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty

.

However, any suggestions that the House of Lords was being unduly servile to Parliament were overturned by A v Home Secretary [2005]. In the case, detainees imprisoned without charge under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, on the grounds that they posed a threat to national security, appealed successfully against their detention. The court held that the powers of detention without charge had discriminatory impact (Articles 5 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998).

United States

There are some examples of judicial deference in the United States, despite its entrenched constitution. For example, in

US Supreme Court

decision Fiallo v. Bell (1977).

The same restraint is requested in

foreign affairs as not-judicable matters,^[1]

to safeguard the executive branch.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. presents the Supreme Court reasoning on when to defer to an agency's interpretation.

References

^ Kirk A. Randazzo, Defenders of Liberty or Champions of Security? Federal Courts, the Hierarchy of Justice, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1438430477, 9781438430478, SUNY Press 2010.

United Kingdom

United States

References

See also