Judicial Restraint Definition

Conflicting judicial philosophies define the essence of the nation’s highest court: The Supreme Court. These two conflicting doctrines are judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial restraint occurs when justices attempt to limit their own power by only declaring actions of the other branches unconstitutional when the decision is obvious. Precedent, the concept of stare decisis, is also highly revered by judicial restraint justices. Judicial activism revolves around the idea that justices should “legislate from the bench” by entering into social and political matters.

Abortion has been an issue that has been subject to both judicial restraint and judicial activism. For example, during the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case in 1973, Chief

Justice Warren G. Burger and his associate justices determined that abortion was legal due to the implied right to privacy contained within the Bill of Rights. The case established procedures for the first, second, and third trimester of pregnancies. Roe v. Wade is an example of judicial activism because the Court intervened in the regulation of social and political matters. In contrast, during the Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court Case in 1992, Chief Justice William Rehnquist established judicial restraint by setting restrictions, such as parental consent and a twenty-four hour waiting time, on abortions. Despite these rulings, the judicial system still continues to argue over the issue of abortion today.
The issue of minority rights has also dealt with opposing judicial ideologies.

For example, during the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court Case in 1896, Chief Justice Melville Fuller and his associate justices ruled that segregation was legal under “separate but equal’ circumstances; thus, upholding the constitutionality of the state law. This ruling upheld Homer Plessy’s placement into the “blacks only” section of a train. This case exemplifies judicial restraint because the Court upheld precedent and the law did not create an obvious violation of the Constitution. However, Chief Justice Earl Warren helped overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in the Brown v. Board of Education¬ Supreme Court case in 1954. Brown v. Board of Education ended public school segregation and determined that separate could never be equal. This case represents judicial activism because the Court ignored the precedent of stare decisis, and the Court entered into social and political matters by setting a new precedent for civil rights.

Judicial disagreements, conservative versus liberal or restraint versus activism, will continue to characterize the nature of the land’s highest court. Regardless, the Supreme Court will continue to serve as a “referee” regarding the actions of the executive and legislative branches. The battle between judicial restraint and judicial activism has been a significant part of United States Supreme Court history, and the conflict will epitomize President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination

battle.