AP® Comparative Government and Politics review sheet from Aim for Five (aimforfive.com/comp-gov/units/2/2-8)
Unit 2 · Topic 2.8
2.8 Judicial Systems
Courts interpret laws and settle disputes, but they differ in how judges are chosen and whether they can strike down laws. Mexico now elects its judges by popular vote after a 2024 reform; the UK Supreme Court can't overturn Acts of Parliament; Iran's courts apply Islamic law; and China's courts operate under party leadership.
Key terms
- judicial review
- rule of law
- rule by law
- Supreme Court
- Sharia
- judicial election
Recent changes to know (as of October 2026)
Mexico's 2024 judicial reform changed how judges are chosen. Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are now elected by popular vote. The Supreme Court was cut from 11 to 9 justices, who serve 12-year terms. In the first judicial election, on 1 June 2025, turnout was about 13%, and the new court took office on 1 September 2025. Before the reform, justices were nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for 15-year terms, so older materials (including some official course documents) describe that system.
In 2026 Mexico amended the reform. The second round of judicial elections, planned for 2027, was moved to June 2028, the number of candidates was cut, and candidates now face professional exams.
Key terms
- Judicial review: the power of courts to strike down laws or government actions that break the constitution.
- Rule of law: everyone, including the government, is bound by laws applied fairly by independent courts.
- Rule by law: the government uses law as a tool to control society, while placing itself above the law.
- Sharia: Islamic law, based on the Quran and religious tradition.
- Common law vs. code law: in common-law systems (the UK, Nigeria), judges' past decisions guide future ones; in code-law systems (Mexico, Russia, China), judges apply detailed written codes.
The six court systems
| Country | Top court | Judicial review? |
|---|---|---|
| UK | Supreme Court, created in 2009 | No power to strike down Acts of Parliament; can declare them incompatible with human rights and can rule government actions unlawful |
| Mexico | Supreme Court, 9 elected justices | Yes, including through amparo, a way for individuals to challenge acts that violate their rights |
| Nigeria | Supreme Court | Yes; also hears final appeals in election disputes |
| Russia | Constitutional Court and Supreme Court | Yes on paper; judges appointed on the president's nomination and, since 2020, removable on the president's proposal |
| Iran | Supreme Court; judiciary head chosen by the Supreme Leader | Constitutional review sits with the Guardian Council, not the courts |
| China | Supreme People's Court | No; the NPC Standing Committee interprets the constitution |
Country notes
UK: Because of parliamentary sovereignty, courts can't cancel Acts of Parliament. Under the Human Rights Act 1998 they can issue a declaration of incompatibility, leaving it to Parliament to act. They can still check the government: in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prime minister's suspension (prorogation) of Parliament was unlawful. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for most cases, protects rights and settles disputes over devolved powers.
Nigeria: Federal courts use common law. Supreme Court justices are recommended by the National Judicial Council, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and anti-corruption efforts aim to rebuild trust in the courts. Under federalism, northern states also have Sharia courts, and twelve of them extended Sharia to criminal cases involving Muslims, starting with Zamfara in 2000.
Russia: Judges are nominated by the president and approved by the Federation Council. The courts have judicial review on paper but haven't used it to limit the president, and they have been used against opposition figures.
Iran: The judiciary's main job is to keep the legal system in line with Islamic law, so judges must be trained in Sharia. The head of the judiciary is appointed by the Supreme Leader for five years and nominates the six jurists on the Guardian Council, who then need Majles approval. Revolutionary Courts handle cases seen as threats to the state.
China: Courts are overseen by the party's Political and Legal Affairs Commission, a clear example of rule by law.
Common mistakes
- Saying the UK Supreme Court can strike down laws. It can't overturn Acts of Parliament; it can only declare them incompatible with rights.
- Describing Mexico's Supreme Court with 11 justices nominated by the president. Since 2025 there are 9 elected justices.
- Mixing up rule of law and rule by law. Rule by law means the state uses law as a tool but isn't bound by it.
On the exam
- Know how judges are chosen in each country; the exam often asks how selection affects independence.
- Watch for older practice questions and videos that describe Mexico's pre-2024 courts.
Connected topics
Videos
Check yourself
5 questions on 2.8 Judicial Systems. Pick an answer to see if you got it, and why.
Which statement best describes China's judicial system?
Who appoints the head of Iran's judiciary?
Which statement about Nigeria's judiciary is accurate?
In September 2019, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prime minister's advice to the monarch to suspend (prorogue) Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, because it stopped Parliament from carrying out its role without a reasonable justification.
The court treated the suspension as void, and the House of Commons sat again the next day. The ruling did not strike down any Act of Parliament; it concerned an action taken by the executive.
Summary written for this practice set
The ruling described in the passage shows that UK courts can
Compared with the UK Supreme Court, Nigeria's Supreme Court has greater power to
0 of 5 answered