Judicial restraint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.[1] It is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism.

In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially-restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicial restraint requires the judge to uphold a law whenever possible.

Contents 1 Related theories 1.1 Minimalism 1.2 Political question doctrine 2 See also

[edit] Related theories

[edit] Minimalism

Judicial minimalists argue that judges should put great emphases on adherence to stare decisis and precedent. Minimalists argue that judges should make only minor, incremental changes to constitutional law in order to maintain that stability. They ask judges to do this by creating small, case-specific rulings rather than broad, sweeping rulings.

[edit] Political question doctrine

The political question doctrine encourages courts to decline to rule in certain categories of controversial cases. Under this theory, a court acknowledges that the Constitution might have been violated but declines to act. It is often described as a type of judicial restraint, although it can be considered a form of judicial activism against plaintiffs whose rights have been violated and find their cases dismissed.

[edit] See also

• Separation of powers
• Judicial activism
• Luther v. Borden - sometimes called the first instance of judicial restraint