Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Judicial restraint

 
Law Dictionary: Judicial Restraint

The theory of judicial behavior that advocates basing decisions on grounds that have been previously defined by judicial precedent rather than on the basis of achieving some public good, which is viewed as the proper role of the legislature. Compare judicial activism.

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Politics: judicial restraint
Top

A view, associated with Felix Frankfurter among others, that judges should be reluctant to declare legislative enactments unconstitutional unless the conflict between the enactment and the Constitution is obvious. The doctrine is akin to, but not identical with, narrow construction, and it is the opposite of judicial activism.

Wikipedia: Judicial restraint
Top

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.[1] It is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism.

In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially-restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicial restraint requires the judge to uphold a law whenever possible. Former Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, a Democrat appointed by Franklin Roosevelt, is generally seen as the "model of judicial restraint." [2]

Judicially-restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.[3] When the late Chief Justice Rehnquist overturned some of the precedents of the Warren Court, Time Magazine said he was not following the theory of judicial restraint.[3]

Contents

Related theories

Minimalism

Judicial minimalists argue that judges should put great emphasis on adherence to stare decisis and precedent. Minimalists argue that judges should make only minor, incremental changes to constitutional law in order to maintain that stability. They ask judges to do this by creating small, case-specific rulings rather than broad, sweeping rulings.

Political question doctrine

The political question doctrine encourages courts to decline to rule in certain categories of controversial cases. Under this theory, a court acknowledges that the Constitution might have been violated but declines to act. It is often described as a type of judicial restraint, although it can be considered a form of judicial activism against plaintiffs whose rights have been violated and find their cases dismissed.

Judicial restraint and individual U.S. Supreme Court cases

  • Luther v. Borden, 1849 - sometimes called the first instance of judicial restraint
  • Bush v. Gore, 2000 - Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was ruled as having violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a presidential election
  • District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008- Declared the Washington, D.C. ban on private ownership of hand guns unconstitutional in violation of the 2nd Amendment

See also

References



 
 

 

Copyrights:

Law Dictionary. Law Dictionary. Copyright © 2003 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Politics. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Judicial restraint" Read more