What Courts Can — and Cannot — Do

March 6, 2026

One of the most common misunderstandings about the Supreme Court is what it is actually allowed to do.

The Constitution draws that line far more narrowly than many people assume.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that judges are not policymakers. A law cannot be struck down simply because a court believes it is unwise, unfair, or poorly designed. As the Court itself has said, nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing unwise legislation.

Courts also have no authority to rewrite statutes to suit their own views of justice or propriety. They do not sit as a super-legislature. They do not act as a committee of review over policy choices. And they do not possess a veto power over legislation enacted by the political branches.

The judiciary does not decide political questions that the Constitution assigns to Congress or the president. It does not set foreign policy. It does not direct military strategy. And it does not tell the executive how best to respond to emergencies that require rapid action.

But there is a crucial constitutional counterbalance.

The Supreme Court has made clear that deference in matters of policy cannot become abdication in matters of law. Courts are required to enforce constitutional boundaries even when they disagree with neither the wisdom nor the popularity of government action.

The judiciary’s duty is not to judge whether something is smart. It is to judge whether it is constitutional.

In a constitutional system, courts guard the boundary lines — but they do not redraw the map.