Judicial Activism is when judges make decisions that bring big changes in laws or policies. They often think about the spirit of the law and what is fair, even if it means going against older laws or ideas.
Judicial Restraint is when judges stick closely to the law and previous court decisions. They believe that it’s best to let laws stand as they are and not change them unless it's really necessary.
Reasons Judges Use Activism or Restraint:
- Judges might use activism to help protect people’s rights or to address unfair situations.
- Judges might use restraint to respect the laws set by elected officials or to avoid making decisions that could lead to chaos or confusion.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is an example of judicial restraint. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that racial segregation was okay as long as things were "separate but equal." The judges did not challenge the laws of segregation and upheld them.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is an example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in schools was not fair and that "separate but equal" was not truly equal. The judges took action to change the law to help promote equality.
In summary, judges might impact laws differently based on their beliefs. Some cases keep the limits of the law, while others push for change and progress.