In what situation might a court exercise judicial review?

A court might exercise judicial review primarily to assess the constitutionality of laws or actions taken by legislative bodies or executive branches. This power is rooted in the principle that no law or government action may contravene the established rights and principles set forth in the Constitution. Through judicial review, courts can invalidate laws that they find to be in conflict with constitutional provisions, thereby upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights.

In this context, the exercise of judicial review serves as a critical check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that all governmental actions adhere to constitutional standards. This process not only maintains the balance of power among the branches of government but also reinforces the importance of constitutional governance, providing a mechanism for individuals to challenge laws that they believe infringe upon their rights.

Other options relate to different aspects of judicial functions but do not pertain specifically to the authority of courts to review laws for constitutionality. For example, interpreting ambiguous statutes is primarily about understanding legislative intent rather than evaluating conformity with the Constitution. Enforcing compliance with administrative rules falls within administrative law, involving rulings on regulatory matters rather than constitutional reviews. Determining the facts of a case typically pertains to the role of the court in evaluating evidence presented during a trial, which is distinct from