Free US Law Dictionary
BETA
Judicial Restraint
Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.[1] It is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism.
In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially-restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicial restraint requires the judge to uphold a law whenever possible.
"In Defense of Judicial Activism: D.C. v. Heller and the failures of conservative judicial restraint."
"In Defense of Judicial Activism: D.C. v. Heller and the failures of conservative judicial restraint." Damon W. Root has this essay online at Reason.
Judicial Restraint in a System of Judicial Review
I'll have more to say about living constitutionalism in a later posting this week, but in the mean time, I wanted to offer a few remarks about Eric Posner's call for judicial restraint last week...
More on Judicial Restraint in a System of Judicial Review
I fear that my jest at the beginning of my previous post on judicial restraint caused Eric Posner to miss the real point of my discussion of judicial review...
Judicial Restraint or Judicial Obfuscation
Lyle Denniston has this very interesting post on the SCOTUS blog: The assault on "faux judicial restraint".
The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) also discusses the issue in an article titled, Roberts Rules...
Judicial Restraint
That's the title of an editorial in today's Winston-Salem Journal on North Carolina's lethal injection challenge. LINKCritics of our appellate courts often skewer judges for being "judicial activists...
Scalia, Judicial Restraint, and Heller
Damon W. Root has an article on Reason.com discussing judicial restraint, the Supreme Court's current champion of the principle, Justice Antonin Scalia, and how Scalia completely and inexplicably...















