According to most mainstream discussions concerning legal and political components of the judicial system, there are two approaches that govern much of court proceedings. These can be summarized as judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial restraint refers to the direct and uninvolved interpretation and decision-making within legal parameters according to the Constitution. As such, this format upholds all government acts unless they oppose the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, judicial activism interprets the constitution to be reflective of contemporary values (Bolick, 2019). However, some assertations of non-direct interpretations may be unjustified. This creates a division between the two practices, though the benefits of judicial activism outweigh that of judicial restraint.
Though the coined term ‘judicial activism’ was at first seen in a negative light, as a situation in which judges had inserted too much of their own opinion, it now manifests as a modern approach to an outdated system (Schacter, 2018). Essentially, both formats can work as a contrast between two eras and ideologies. As such, neither is inherently better or worse, but judicial activism has much more consideration for modern values. As society shifts and more acceptance and justice is seen in the general public, the courts should reflect the sentiments of modern society. The activism approach allows for malleability and adaptation that is going to be necessary for an ever-evolving social landscape.
The 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education is perhaps the most important example of judicial activism. The Warren Court found that segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and created a learning environment that was unequal (Spitzer, 2020). It overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling and essentially dismantled segregation by legal standards. It was a vital step that improved the education system for previously marginalized groups due to opposing a restrictive standard that would be accepted by a judicial restraint perspective.
Works Cited
Bolick, Clint. “The Proper Role of “Judicial Activism.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 42, no. 1, 2019, pp. 210-272.
Schacter, Jane S. “Putting the Politics of “Judicial Activism” in Historical Perspective.” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 2017, 2018, pp. 209-272.
Spitzer, Elianna. “What is Judicial Activism?” Thought Co., 2020.