Government and politics concepts · AP U.S. Government and Politics, AP U.S. History
Judicial activism and judicial restraint
Judicial activism and judicial restraint: Competing views of the courts' role: activism favors using judicial power to correct injustices, restraint favors deferring to elected branches and precedent.
By the CollegePrepRoom editorial team · Updated · How we write and check these pages
What it means
Judicial restraint holds that judges should overturn laws only when they clearly violate the Constitution, leaving policy to elected officials. Judicial activism describes a willingness to use judicial power more broadly, including striking down laws or overturning precedent.
The labels are often used politically, and the same decision can be called activist by critics and principled by supporters.
Example
A court that declines to rule on how a state draws its districts, saying the issue belongs to legislatures, is practicing a form of restraint.
On the exam
These ideas appear in Unit 2 questions about the courts' power and the debate over their role in a democracy.