Judicial Activism and the Role of the Judiciary
The US Constitution describes a set of laws that all individuals, private institutions, and government agencies should adhere to for a safe, just, and prosperous society. Hence, the judiciary is the branch of the government responsible for enforcing these regulations and bringing offenders to justice. However, judicial proceedings do not always adhere to what is stipulated by the Constitution, as some judges go beyond their powers to invalidate executive orders and legislative actions. There are several cases in US history where Supreme Court judges overturned statutory principles established since America gained independence, thus giving rise to the notion of judicial activism and restraint to explain judges’ behaviors. Judicial activism is associated with officials who overstep their obligations to oversee personal or party interests. Nevertheless, scholars should revisit its definition because judicial activists perceive the Constitution as a living instrument, thus allowing it to change over time and accommodate shifting human dynamics.
The Role of the US Judiciary
The American government has three branches: the executive, judiciary, and legislature. The legislative council makes laws while the executive branch puts these laws into effect. On the other hand, the judiciary administers justice according to constitutional stipulations. Therefore, the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law and apply its propositions on controversies and cases presented before a panel of judges (Pacelle, 2018). The term judiciary broadly refers to legal practitioners such as adjudicators, magistrates, judges, and support personnel participating in court proceedings and working on a case. The courts have the right and power to punish lawbreakers as they see fit and establish strategies to ensure that individuals uphold the rules of the constitution (Pacelle, 2018). Hence, judges play the role of intermediaries who give meaning to constitutional texts and offer their opinions regarding the statutory status of lawsuits.
The Concepts of Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint
The US Constitution assigns judges the power to evaluate the acts of the government’s executive, legislature, and administrative branches to establish whether they align with constitutional requirements. As a result, they can declare agency actions unconstitutional or inconsistent with legal standards and subsequently strike them out. Thus, judicial activism is an ideology that points to how judges handle this responsibility and the decisions they make in their judicial reviews. According to Mustafa (2021), judicial activism describes instances when judges neglect their responsibilities of interpreting the law and instead decide legal matters based on their preferences. However, the idea that judicial activism points to adopting self-centred legal decisions is misguided because some constitutional stipulations altered over the past centuries have significantly elevated the US to its position as a global leader.
Judicial restraint is an attribute of court judges who are reluctant to declare executive or legislative actions unconstitutional and maintain the status quo instead. The idea proclaims that judges are passive players in legal matters, meaning they should leverage their expertise and understanding of the constitution to decide on cases rather than their intuition (Allen, 2020). Judicial restraint proposes that judges should limit their powers by avoiding interference with laws that inhibit the initiatives of other government arms. The concept holds that Supreme Court judges should not incorporate their policy preferences or philosophies in matters pertaining to other agencies’ conduct (Balkin, 2019). Thus, they should only strike out a law if it is obviously unconstitutional and directly apply constitutional guidelines to cases. Supporters of judicial restraint suggest that it enables judges to avoid second-guessing the legal nature of decisions made by other arms, including the president, congress, and state governments (Allen, 2020). Thus, judicial restraint is at odds with judicial activism because it advocates for limited interference in government acts.
Judicial activism in the US is inseparable from politics because judges are often inclined to issue rulings that champion their political policies. For example, in the past, conservatives used to complain about the judicial activism of liberal judges. However, the tables have turned as liberals are now concerned with the levels of activism exhibited by conservative majority judge benches. As a result, politicians in the US perceive judicial activism as a channel to achieve their ambitions (Balkin, 2019). Nevertheless, judicial activism is not a term used to describe court decisions that oppositions disagree with. Instead, judicial activism is a concept that characterizes human advancement and allows the constitution to serve US citizens better with time (Mustafa, 2021). Judges are reasonable people who make decisions based on their knowledge. Thus, judicial activism may take many forms depending on the individuals in power and policies in question, but it improves the constitution and makes it more understandable.
Individuals who advocate for judicial restraint shed light on several issues associated with its implications on other arms of the government. For example, some individuals propose that governments take advantage of judicial activism to oversee their social interests. The recent overturning of the Roe vs. Wade ruling to nullify the constitutional liberty of abortion reinforces this notion, as a majority of individuals affirm that the court’s arguments are weak, politically instigated, and an abuse of authority (Allen, 2020). However, not all court decisions to rule out cases are biased, as others encourage positive changes. For instance, the Brown v Board of Education case that ended in 1954 is a form of judicial activism that ushered the US into a new era of advancing its dreams of equality and liberty by providing all children with equal opportunities (Mustafa, 2021). Therefore, judicial activism should be associated with positive outcomes instead of limiting it to court decisions made against the wishes of individuals divided across political factions. Judicial activism allows the constitution to evolve and the judiciary to alter sections it does not deem just.
Judicial activism is a term that takes many forms. Some people assume it is unacceptable, while others propose it benefits democracy. However, judicial activism is a concept that allows the constitution to evolve and reflect the current societal dynamics. Judicial activism, compared to restraint, has several benefits because it allows the judiciary to identify gaps and weaknesses in the US constitution and implement laws that cater to the needs of all individuals. Although individuals in opposition to judicial activism propose that it allows the judiciary to abuse its powers by adhering to the wishes of their political connections, the diversity of court decisions made due to activism disqualifies this idea because judges do not always adhere to the demands of politicians. Therefore, judicial activism is not a term used to describe decisions people disagree with but the approaches adopted to reach these decisions. Subsequently, judicial activism is beneficial because it accommodates human evolution.
References
Allen, J. (2020). Political judging and judicial restraint: The case of Learned and Augustus Hand. American Journal of Legal History, 60(2), 169–191. Web.
Balkin, J. M. (2019). Why liberals and conservatives flipped on judicial restraint: judicial review in the cycles of constitutional time. Tex. L. Rev., 98, 215. Web.
Mustafa, C. (2021). The view of judicial activism and public legitimacy. Crime, Law and Social Change, 76(1), 23–34. Web.
Pacelle, R. L. (2018). The role of the Supreme Court in American politics: The least dangerous branch? Routledge.