Question

For the following list of it is Activisism or restraint

In Schenck v. United States, the Court upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, under which Schenck had been prosecuted for passing out leaflets urging men to resist the draft.

The Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act, part of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Court overturned the conviction of Mapp, finding that states were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment.

In Engel v. Vitale, the Court ruled that laws mandating prayer in schools violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court struck down state laws making abortion legal.

In 1997, the Court declared the part of the Brady Act that required state or local law enforcement agencies to conduct background checks on gun purchasers unconstitutional.

The Court upheld most portions of the Affordable Care Act.

Answer 1

I'll label each decision as showing primarily "judicial activism" or "judicial restraint" with a brief reason.

- Schenck v. United States (upheld Espionage Act): Restraint — the Court deferred to Congress and the wartime government and upheld the statute restricting speech.
- Striking down the National Industrial Recovery Act (Schechter Poultry): Activism — the Court invalidated a major New Deal statute, actively overturning legislative policy.
- Mapp v. Ohio (state exclusion of illegally seized evidence): Activism — the Court expanded constitutional protections by incorporating the exclusionary rule against the states and reversing prior practice.
- Engel v. Vitale (struck down school prayer): Activism — the Court invalidated state-sponsored prayer, actively enforcing the Establishment Clause against state law.
- Roe v. Wade: Activism — Roe recognized a constitutional right to abortion and struck down many state bans (note: Roe struck down laws that made abortion illegal, not laws making it legal).
- 1997 decision striking the Brady Act provision (Printz v. United States): Activism — the Court invalidated a federal statutory requirement, actively limiting Congress’s implementation method.
- NFIB v. Sebelius (upholding most of the Affordable Care Act): Restraint — the Court largely upheld the statute (while narrowly limiting one portion), deferring to Congress’s judgment where possible.