Final answer:
The role of judicial review in the Alexander v. South Carolina case involved the courts' authority to evaluate and potentially nullify laws and government actions that are deemed unconstitutional. This process, stemming from the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, is central to upholding civil rights and preventing the enshrinement of segregationist laws that violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the case of Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the concept of judicial review played a pivotal role. Judicial review is the authority held by courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. In this particular case, the NAACP utilized the strategy of challenging segregationist policies through legal proceedings, compelling courts to confront issues of equality and state-imposed segregation.
The judicial review process is a core element of the checks and balances system, allowing the judiciary to check the powers of other branches of government and the states. It's not explicitly stated in the Constitution but was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, thus giving courts the ability to declare laws unconstitutional if they violate the principles outlined in the Constitution.
The judicial review, by overturning discriminatory laws and practices, becomes a powerful tool for civil rights organizations such as the NAACP, aiding in their efforts to advance equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.