The judiciary doesn't pass laws. The judiciary can choose to nullify a law by choosing "not guilty" for anyone charged under a law that's unjust. The executive

The judiciary doesn't pass laws. The judiciary can choose to nullify a law by choosing "not guilty" for anyone charged under a law that's unjust. The executive can also just not arrest people seen walking their dogs on Thursdays. The legislature could just revoke the law that made it illegal to begin with, then the executive and judiciary have no right to arrest or convict under it anymore – even if the previous precedent was considered sound. This is how the government works. Yes, transition periods may be sloppy (people may be arrested for walking their dogs), but it will equalize. Legislature makes an unjust law The executive can choose to enforce or not to enforce If the executive enforces, the judiciary can choose not to convict Let's say for this specific scenario, assuming the surveillance isn't Constitutional (big assumption): 1: Executive begins doing something that's not Constitutional Judiciary chooses not to convict Law is nullified and executive will stop enforcing (what would be the point?) 2: Executive begins doing something that's not Constitutional Judiciary chooses to convict (the law is now officially Constitutional) Legislature disagrees with convictions and can pass specific laws outlawing the original executive actions, OR revoke the original law which allowed the unconstitutional interpretation This is all by design. This is how it's meant to work. Just because you don't think it's working in your favor does not mean it's broken.