Perhaps the most significant power Irish courts enjoy is that they have the final and supreme say over what the Constitution means and requires, obliging the other branches to listen and obey. Irish judges determine the scope and substance of fundamental constitutional rights, and review legislation and executive action to see if it is consistent with them.

Given the Constitution is our fundamental law and structures and channels political power, how it is interpretated can have enormous repercussions for politics. It is a judicial function that consequently deserves careful and considered scrutiny. In this spirit, this article gives a critical account of the current state of play of how judges interpret constitutional rights.

Part I offers a brisk sketch of the development of our constitutional rights jurisprudence. Part II focuses on the emergence of the so-called ‘derived rights doctrine’ in the last decade and how it is similar or different to significant prior jurisprudential trends. Part III probes whether this development is a welcome one or not.