The legal system can affect what policies a government can implement. In particular, when there is separation of powers, the strength of the judiciary to review and overturn actions of the executive and legislative branches can affect such things as how much redistribution these policy-making branches can do. Surprisingly, having judicial review helps the policy-making branches—the stronger is the judiciary, the more redistribution they are able to do. This occurs because the policy-making branches must make promises on and off the equilibrium path to individuals in order to make redistribution possible. However, in many circumstances, the government wants to renege on these promises, either to do more redistribution than promised or to not carry out severe threats against any individuals who lied. Judicial review can prevent reneging on these promises, thus making them credible.We develop this in the context of an optimal income tax model with a finite number of individuals where the government knows the exact distribution of types but not which individual is of which type. In this finite model, the government can detect misrevelation by even a single individual so that an individual׳s taxes can depend not just on one׳s own actions but also on others’ actions. Piketty (JET, 1993) showed that the government could implement any full-information Pareto optimal allocation if the government could commit to its announcements, even to infeasible allocations in circumstances after some individuals misreveal. We derive the sequential equilibrium allocations when individuals reveal their types by simple announcements when feasibility on and off the equilibrium path is imposed. Increasing the degree of judicial review expands the set of achievable allocations on the full-information utility possibility frontier. We also relate the different possible legal rules to different solution concepts in game theory.