difference between z

Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

When it comes to the role of the judiciary in our society, there are two main schools of thought: judicial activism and judicial restraint. These two philosophies have different ideas about how much power the judiciary should have and how it should use it. Here’s a look at the key differences between these two approaches to judging.

What is Judicial Activism?

Judicial activism is a term used to describe the act of judges making decisions based on their own personal or political beliefs instead of basing their decisions on the law. Judicial activists believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted in light of current circumstances, while those who oppose judicial activism believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning. Judicial activists often rely on the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that they give precedence to previous court decisions, even if those decisions were made without considering the current social and political climate. Judicial activism has been used to justify a wide range of controversial decisions, from desegregation to abortion rights. While some people see judicial activism as a positive force for change, others view it as a dangerous threat to the rule of law. In either case, judicial activism is likely to continue to be a controversial issue in the United States for many years to come.

What is Judicial Restraint?

Judicial restraint is an approach to judging that emphasizes the limited role of the judiciary. Judicial restraint is based on the belief that courts should not intervene in policymaking, and that judges should interpret the law narrowly and avoid making decisions that would have far-reaching implications. Judicial restraint has been advocated by some conservative legal thinkers, who believe that it is essential to preserving the balance of power between the different branches of government. However, critics of judicial restraint argue that it can lead to injustice, as courts become less able to protect the rights of minority groups and those who lack political power.

Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two very different approaches to interpreting the law. Judicial activism is when a judge interprets the law in a way that is more progressive and liberal. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, is when a judge interprets the law in a way that is more conservative. Judicial activists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in a living and evolving way, while judicial restrainers believe that it should be interpreted in a more literal and static way.

The issue of judicial activism vs. judicial restraint often comes up in cases involving hot button issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage. Judicial activists may be more likely to strike down laws that they believe are unconstitutional, while judicial restrainers may be more likely to uphold them. Ultimately, it is up to each individual judge to decide which approach they want to take.


The two judicial philosophies, activism, and restraint, are at odds with each other. It is up to the courts to decide which philosophy they will adopt. Judicial activism allows for justices to make decisions based on their personal beliefs. Judicial restraint requires that the court follows the Constitution and only makes decisions based on what is written in the document. Each of these judicial philosophies has its pros and cons. It is important for the public to be aware of these differences so they can hold the court accountable for its actions.

Share this post

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email