Introduction. The judicial constitutional review authorities ensure the supremacy and direct application of the constitutions. They also participates in lawmaking activities. Constitutional review authorities can participate in lawmaking activities directly or circumstantially. There are two kinds of the direct participation of such authorities in lawmaking activities: legislative initiative and participation in lawmaking activities in connection with the implementation of the constitutional review. The methodology of research is based on general scientific and special legal research methods. Theoretical analysis. Some authors note that the decisions of the constitutional review authorities can modify conditions of public life. Authors often emphasize that court decisions that rules certain norms as unconstitutional have the same goals as statutory acts. Empirical analysis. Constitutional courts administer a special kind of lawmaking, such as “positive”, “negative”, “adjusting” and “interpretative” lawmaking. “Positive” lawmaking is connected with the adoption of statutory acts, which regulate the activities of the constitutional courts. “Negative” lawmaking consists in ruling certain legal norms and sources of law unconstitutional and making them void. By means of “adjusting” lawmaking constitutional courts do not rule the norms as completely unconstitutional, but constitutionally interpret them. “Interpretative” lawmaking consists in clarifying legal norms of constitutions. The constitutional review authorities may also provide recommendations to the legislative authorities. Results. The constitutional review authorities can directly participate in lawmaking activities as a legislative initiative or in connection with the implementation of the constitutional control as “positive”, “negative”, “adjusting” and “interpretative” lawmaking. Circumstantial participation of such authorities in lawmaking activities is administered by adopting special messages.