Judicial restraint is an interpretive philosophy where judges limit themselves to the Constitution's text, original meaning, and established precedents. Restraint-oriented courts defer to the political process and elected officials unless laws clearly violate constitutional provisions. Supporters argue this respects democratic decision-making, while critics say it can perpetuate injustice when majorities oppress minorities.
Judicial restraint determines how quickly courts address civil rights violations and social injustices, impacting progress on equality.
People think judicial restraint means never striking down laws. It means doing so only when constitutional violations are clear and text-based.
Judicial restraint determines how quickly courts address civil rights violations and social injustices, impacting progress on equality.
People think judicial restraint means never striking down laws. It means doing so only when constitutional violations are clear and text-based.