Some countries especially those that follow the British have the concept of "separation of powers". First Parliament may decide to make a law about something, secondly the law is drafted and thirdly it is tested in the Courts and Judges rule on what they think was meant by the law. However the Judges include "case law" or history of previous cases to help them with their interpretation of the new law.
So one way to challenge a new law is to find case law that tends to contradict the new law.
An example is the amount of force a householder can use to get rid of a robber in his/her house. This has changed over time however it seems that case law does still enable a house owner (or tenant) to use reasonable (sufficient) force. The definition of reasonable may vary from depending on location and individual situation for example a small person may use a gun against a big person especially in parts of USA.
Otherwise if Parliament required that the law be written then Parliament can change its mind and repeal it. The law may be written with a "sunset clause" so it applies for a limited period eg 50 years.
There are still some strange laws "on the books", laws that reflected the ideas of society perhaps 100 years ago.
The Judiciary is not directly involved in the process of making or passing a law. After a law is passed, if someone believes the law to be unconstitutional, they can challenge its constitutionality in the courts.
The Judicial Branch. If a person or group feels that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, they can challenge the constitutionality of the law in the courts. This process is called judicial review.
With the Federal Circuit Court for your geographical area.
The judicial review is the process whereby the Supreme Court can judge the constitutionality of a given law. During the process, the law is usually allowed to take its course.
deciding the constitutionality of a state law that requires drivers to wear seatbelts
A constitutional court would do this.
(in the US) The Supreme Court of the United States
Brown Vs. Board of Education
Judicial Review
Samuel A. Foot has written: 'An argument in favor of the constitutionality of the general banking law of this state' -- subject(s): Accessible book, Banking law 'An argument, in favor of the constitutionality of the general banking law of this state, delivered before the Supreme Court, at the July term, 1839' -- subject(s): Banking law
US COngress
judicial branch at the state level