The institution of judicial review is an important mechanism of holding the
government legally accountable, nevertheless questions remain about its
proper role in a separation of powers system. This article analyzes the
effect of judicial review on the policy-making process from an expertise
perspective. It shows that the exercise of non-expert judicial review can
induce more informed policies and that non-expert courts have incentives to
exercise judicial review in a manner consistent with institutional concerns
for expertise. In addition to its importance as a mechanism of legal
accountability, our analysis underscores another virtue of judicial review:
legal review of governmental policy by non-expert courts can improve the
amount of information available for policy making. The article contributes
to a literature on the scope and legitimacy of judicial review and has
broader implications for understanding the effect of institutional checks
and balances on the quality of policy making.