Judicial activism

Judicial activism is a critical label for court decisions viewed as departing from restrained application of law, often by interpreting statutes or constitutions expansively.

Judicial restraint: Judicial restraint is an approach favoring limited judicial intervention and deference to elected branches and precedent. It names the contrasting ideal against which accusations of activism are commonly made.
Statutory interpretation: Statutory interpretation is the process courts use to determine the meaning and application of legislation. Broad readings of statutes can prompt claims that judges have exceeded legislative intent.
Marbury v. Madison: Marbury v. Madison was an 1803 U.S. Supreme Court case that established judicial review of federal legislation. The decision created a central instrument later disputes associate with judicial power.
Judicial overreach: Judicial overreach is a criticism that courts have exceeded their proper authority or institutional role. It is a close accusation often used interchangeably with judicial activism.
Judicial review: Judicial review is the power of courts to assess whether government actions conform to law, including constitutional requirements. Activism debates often concern how boldly courts should exercise this power.
Constitutional interpretation: Constitutional interpretation is the process of determining the meaning and legal effect of constitutional provisions. Disputes over constitutional meaning often shape claims of judicial activism.
Brown v. Board of Education: Brown v. Board of Education was a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The ruling illustrates how judicial intervention can enforce constitutional rights against established policy.
Judicial minimalism: Judicial minimalism favors narrow rulings that resolve cases without deciding more than necessary. It offers a decision-making approach designed to limit the breadth of judicial rulings.
Separation of powers: Separation of powers divides governmental authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Critics invoke it when they believe courts have taken on policymaking roles.
Stare decisis: Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts generally follow established judicial precedents when deciding cases. Departures from precedent are often cited as evidence of judicial overreach.

Linked from 16 pages