Judicial activism occurs when judges base their decisions on their personal beliefs about morality rather than strictly adhering to the law. This may involve disregarding precedent and establishing new legal principles. Some view this as a positive way for judges to safeguard individual rights, while others see it as potentially leading to unjust rulings.
Judicial activism is a philosophy guiding judges’ decision-making, where they use personal beliefs and other factors to make decisions, often leading to finding constitutional violations and disregarding previous court decisions. In contrast, judicial restraint involves judges limiting their decisions to the law and previous court decisions. For example, a judge practicing judicial activism might rule a law unconstitutional based on their belief it violates privacy rights, even without a clear constitutional violation, and ignore previous court decisions supporting the law. This illustrates how judges practicing judicial activism may use personal beliefs to interpret the law, leading to controversy and criticism.
Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to interpret the law in a way that reflects their personal beliefs and values, rather than strictly adhering to the text of the law.
Judicial restraint refers to the practice of judges deferring to the legislative and executive branches of government when interpreting the law, rather than taking an active role in shaping policy.
Yes, judicial activism is legal, but it is a controversial practice that is often criticized for overstepping the bounds of the judiciary.
Examples of judicial activism include the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, and the Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.
Supporters of judicial activism argue that it is necessary to protect individual rights and ensure that the law reflects changing social values.
Critics of judicial activism argue that it undermines the democratic process by allowing unelected judges to make policy decisions that should be left to elected officials.
Judicial activism can blur the line between the judiciary and the legislative branch, as judges are essentially making policy decisions rather than simply interpreting the law.
Yes, judicial activism can be challenged through the appeals process or through legislative action.
The Supreme Court has the final say on matters of constitutional interpretation, and its decisions can have a significant impact on the practice of judicial activism.
The practice of judicial activism has evolved over time, with some periods of history being characterized by more active courts than others.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/judicial-activism/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Judicial Activism. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/judicial-activism/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Judicial Activism. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/judicial-activism/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Judicial Activism. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/judicial-activism/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts