Judicial restraint. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism.


For more information about the controversy over judicial activism and judicial restraint, see Related Questions, below.

It did not seem to be judicial activism as there wasn't a larger issue at hand. Rather, the final decision appears historically to be judicial partisanship.

Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.

Judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges and justices should defer to written legislation whenever possible, if it is not in conflict with the Constitution. A justice who uses judicial restraint tends to take a narrower view of the Constitution and does not attempt to broaden the definition of Amendments to fit a particular social or political agenda.

The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism.

For more information on the debate between judicial activism and judicial restrain, see Related Links, below.

Judicial restraint 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.