A bill that was signed by the Governor is challenged in court by citizens who claim that it harms the community. The Supreme Court listens to the arguments on both sides and makes a decision that the law is unconstitutional.
In this case, are the justices interpreting the law or administering justice?
interpreting the law
In this case, the justices of the Supreme Court are primarily interpreting the law. Let me explain why.
When citizens challenge a bill in court, they are essentially questioning its constitutionality - whether the bill aligns with the provisions and principles outlined in the Constitution. The role of the Supreme Court justices is to analyze the arguments presented by both sides, review relevant legal precedents, and interpret the law in question against the backdrop of the Constitution.
Interpreting the law means that the justices are interpreting the intent, meaning, and scope of the legislation, and determining whether it complies with the Constitution. They carefully analyze the language of the law, its context, and the potential impact on individuals or society as a whole. Their primary task is to determine whether the law is consistent with the Constitution or if it violates any constitutional protections.
The goal of interpretation is to understand the law and apply its meaning to the specific case at hand. Justices carefully review the arguments and evidence presented to them, along with any relevant legal precedents, in order to arrive at a fair and reasoned decision. Their decision, in this case, that the law is unconstitutional, demonstrates their interpretation of the law in relation to the Constitution.
While the justices' interpretation of the law does contribute to administering justice, the main focus in this scenario is on their role as interpreters rather than administrators. Administering justice typically involves enforcing and applying the law, rather than directly determining its constitutionality.