Judicial Restraint And Judicial Activism?

Introduction and Overview

On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.

Historical Background

Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,