Judicial restraint

Judicial restraint is a judicial philosophy favoring limited use of courts’ power to invalidate or reshape government action. It emphasizes deference to elected branches and respect for precedent.

Judicial review: The power of courts to assess whether government acts conform to a constitution. Restraint concerns how cautiously courts should exercise this power.
Judicial activism: A criticism of judicial decisions seen as reaching beyond restrained interpretation or the proper judicial role. It is commonly used as the opposing label for decisions that invalidate or reshape policy.
John Marshall: Chief justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, whose decisions strengthened the authority of the federal judiciary. His legacy supplies a landmark contrast between establishing judicial power and exercising it cautiously.
Separation of powers: The division of government authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Restraint treats limits on judicial intervention as part of this institutional arrangement.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish: A 1937 Supreme Court decision upholding Washington State’s minimum-wage law for women. The Court deferred to legislative judgment on economic regulation rather than imposing a constitutional barrier.
Stare decisis: The doctrine that courts should generally follow precedents established in earlier decisions. Adherence to precedent can limit judicial change, though restraint does not require it in every case.
Living constitutionalism: An approach that interprets constitutional provisions in light of changing social conditions and contemporary values. Its willingness to adapt constitutional meaning can conflict with restraint grounded in deference or historical limits.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: An American jurist and Supreme Court justice known for legal realism and deference to legislative judgments. His opinions argued that courts should not substitute their policy preferences for those of legislatures.
Majoritarianism: A political principle that gives priority to the preferences of the majority, typically expressed through elections. Deference to elected branches can protect majority rule while leaving minorities exposed.
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.: A 1955 Supreme Court decision upholding an Oklahoma regulation of eyeglass fitting against a due-process challenge. The opinion exemplifies broad deference to legislative judgments about economic regulation.

Linked from 20 pages