The word: JUSTICE has many meanings depending upon the need of the circumstance.
According to The Cambridge dictionary JUSTICE means : “fairness in the way people are dealt with.“ Actually that’s fairness. [1] Not JUSTICE.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary JUSTICE means: “Protecting rights and punishing wrongs using fairness.” [2] That is just fairness. Not JUSTICE. Protecting rights comes close. Punishment is part of the law but is not justice itself.
Merriam Webster tries to be everything: [3] “the maintenance or administration of what is just “, “the administration of law”, “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair”, “the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action”, “conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness”, “the quality of conforming to law”, “conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness”: Nope. Its all just faireness, or the use of the term to indicate the ‘justice’ system itself.
The Justice Department doesn’t even attempt to define justice. The term is NOT contained in the Justice Department’s own Legal Terms Glossary. [4]
Not to be outdone, the Glossary of the U.S. Courts doesn’t contain a definition either. [5]
Cornell Law School goes all out: “Justice is the ethical , philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken – both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions (see: due process ).Justice is a legal structure or system that is designed to judge in a general sense who should be accorded a benefit or burden when the law is applied to a person’s factual circumstances.Justice is a title conferred upon a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court , the federal courts of appeal , or the state courts of appeal.” [6]
The term has many meanings depending on the application but it has only ONE REAL MEANING. It cannot be tailored to specific uses and change by the circumstance. It must be one definition that applies equally to all uses. Or it means NOTHING.
“Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion.”
Thomas Jefferson [7]
After a seriously exhaustive search I have been unable to find any court opinion or case law that has addressed what JUSTICE actually is. Until now.
“Justice: is not its process; not its procedure; not what it takes to reach it, but rather wholeness of the victim. Without the victim being whole justice has not been served no matter how many arrests or indictments result.” [8] Either criminal or civil or anything in between.
“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” Montesquieu [9]
When JUSTICE is defined as making the victim whole, the entire process takes on specific and equal meaning regardless of its application.
A victim who’s justice (wholeness) has been stolen or damaged cannot be addressed properly unless that wholeness is restored. JUSTICE is the restoration of wholeness of the victim. That definition makes the entire Justice System targeted to reducing suffering by restoring normal and making the pain stop.
An eye for an eye does not mean plucking eyes. It means balance and order and restoration. Justice is NOT proper retribution. Justice is NOT able to be attributed to inanimate objects or conditions or existences. Social Justice is NOT POSSIBLE. Justice is NOT making something fit someone’s ideal condition. The society cannot be a victim. Members of the society can. Justice can only exist if a victim needs restoration. Then Justice enters to make it whole again. Justice is not how many people get arrested. It is not a sentence fitting a crime. It is whether the victim (there always has to be a victim or there is no entry to Justice), is made whole.
Once JUSTICE has been correctly defined, as it is here (and in a SCOTUS case we know): the question of placement of the JUDICIAL system arises in a whole new light.
Co-Equal Branch:
The Judiciary is a co-equal branch of the United States Government. But the branches of this Government are NOT co-equal. At least not now as of May 31, 2025. I blame foot dragging prosecutors protecting their power for such delay.
Each branch is completely different. There is no common ground of each that apply to all, other than adhering to the Constitution.
Jefferson warned about this: “In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS! “ [10]
“The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury.” [10]
“The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.” [10]
“…the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one….when all government … in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. [10]
“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” [10]
“…judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic…” [10]
All of that because the branches are not equal. There needs to be a single equality across all three branches that makes them equal regardless of their duties and powers and responsibilities: while maintaining separation of powers and separate independence.
There is.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. “If something is good for one person, it should be equally as good for another person.” [13]
If one branch is prohibited from an action, then all branches are prohibited or it is an unconstitutional prohibition. (The Executive and Judicial cannot censor free speech any more than the Legislative can pass a law restricting free speech, even though that prohibition only applies to the Legislative.) If it did not apply to all branches the Legislative would be subservient to the other two.
If one branch is granted a power that effects any other branch then all branches must have that power or a facsimile thereof. Keeping in mind the warnings of Jefferson: if one branch (say Article 3 Courts) is able to cross the separation of powers to control another branch (say Article 2 Executive) then all branches have that power or it is unconstitutional. (Lower Court District Judges do not have the power to dictate to any other branch how to execute their enumerated powers [11] anymore than the Executive has the power to control judicial proceedings only the Judge may do.
Co-Equal must mean co-equal.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as: “the term that is applied to something being the same rank, of the same value and equal to something else.” [12] All definitions seem to focus on one element: the same rank. The same existence. The same value. But no definition includes the application of the powers of different branches. Only that can actually be made equal.
At the moment: the branches are far from co-equal. They are equal only in that they are the only three branches of Government. They exist. There is no common element of their existence.
Until.
Wait for it. I have to.
REFERENCES:
[9] Quoted in https://leehempfling.com/legal/justice/ which is included in full in the first petition of in Re Lee Kent Hempfling et Ux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu French: 18 January 1689 – 10 February 1755, generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French judge, man of letters, historian, and political philosopher. He is the principal source of the theory of separation of powers, which is implemented in many constitutions throughout the world.