What is judicial activism?

Answer 1

Judicial activism is the tendency to interpret the Constitution or law in a way that goes beyond the original authors' intent, in order to influence public policy. Activism can be either conservative or liberal: Conservative activism tends to narrow the scope of interpretation to restrict government or individual rights; liberal activism tends to broaden the scope of interpretation to expand individual rights in keeping with progressive social norms.

Martin Garbus, in his book Courting Disaster: The Supreme Court and the Unmaking of American Laws, claims the Marshall Court, New Deal Court, Warren Court and Rehnquist Court all made decisions that had their basis in political agendas, rather than laws.

Often, charges of judicial activism mean the Court or justice has made a decision with which the accuser disagrees. Therefore, progressives accuse conservatives of being judicial activists when they interpret the Constitution to support conservative political ideologies; conservatives accuse progressives of being judicial activists when they interpret the Constitution to support progressive political ideologies.

Conversely, when a Court upholds an earlier precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis, or refuses to declare a challenged act of Congress unconstitutional, or otherwise upholds the status quo, they are said to be practicing judicial restraint.

The debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint tends to reveal as much about the opinions of the person making the accusation as the tendencies of the Court.

Commonly Cited Examples of Judicial Activism

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)

Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905)

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)

Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)

A+LS: A justice allows his or her personal opinions to influence a decision

Answer 2

First, it should be pointed out that phrases like "judicial activism" are often used when someone disagrees with a ruling. This phrase refers to the belief that the judge(s) made law ("legislated from the bench") instead of just interpreting law. But in the case of Brown versus the Board of Education in 1954, the Supreme Court did not make new law, although some people vehemently opposed their ruling. The Court said that the 1896 case, Plessy versus Ferguson, which had allowed segregation, was wrong, and that there should no longer be an enforced, legal (de jure) segregation of the races.

That said, there have indeed been times where justices were willing to step out and create what could be seen as a new law. But since I think you are asking about Brown v. Board of Education, charges of activism are not as easy to defend in this case. The majority of the Supreme Court seemed to feel that it was righting a wrong, because the original idea of "separate but equal," expressed back in 1896, had been repeatedly violated. African-Americans (then called "Negroes") were certainly separate, but not at all equal with regard to the schools they were allowed to attend, the neighborhoods in which they were allowed to live, or the occupations in which they were allowed to work.

Answer 3

When a court changes the interpretation of a law from what the legislative branch intended