Law
Fact-checked

At WiseGEEK, we're committed to delivering accurate, trustworthy information. Our expert-authored content is rigorously fact-checked and sourced from credible authorities. Discover how we uphold the highest standards in providing you with reliable knowledge.

Learn more...

What is Judicial Restraint?

Karyn Maier
Karyn Maier
Karyn Maier
Karyn Maier

Judicial restraint is a philosophy that upholds the tenets of democracy by meeting a responsibility to limit power in deference to policy governed by constitutional law. In short, judges who exercise judicial restraint do so to adhere to the specific language of the Constitution when ruling. However, if meaning in a particular area is unclear, a restrained judge may attempt to interpret the spirit of the law as the authors of the Constitution intended.

One of the primary goals of judicial restraint is to preserve the balance between the three branches of government--judicial, legislative, and executive. To that end, judges who model restraint engage in law review rather than promote the modification of existing law. Further, the viewpoint of judicial restraint dictates that a judge must stand consistent with previous findings that have set legal precedence, a policy referred to as stare decisis. In fact, conformity of this nature is the backbone of this conservative view. Its politics support the values upon which the American justice system was based: majority rules.

A judge's findings must be consistent with set legal precedent.
A judge's findings must be consistent with set legal precedent.

Similar principles are applied when ruling on a matter of statutory law or administrative law. In fact, judicial restraint calls for the review of protocols drafted by related agencies authorized to enact legislation in these areas by Congress. Again, in the event that the language or meaning of such legislation is unclear, a restrained judge is obligated to defer to the opinion of leading agency officials. This deference is deemed warranted since Congress appointed such individuals based on their expertise in such matters.

Judges who exercise judicial restraint do so to adhere to the specific language of the Constitution when ruling.
Judges who exercise judicial restraint do so to adhere to the specific language of the Constitution when ruling.

There is a great deal of debate over the necessity or even the applicability of this restrictive attitude toward judicial conduct. For one thing, there are degrees of judicial restraint or, at least, varying levels of conservative behavior among jurists. For example, restrained judges are sometimes referred to as strict constructionists or textualists. This level of conservatism disregards the proposal that the Constitution is a “living” document intended to evolve with those it governs. In other words, those who rule under these terms do so by the strict letter of the law and nothing more.

On the other hand, some restrained jurists prefer to define their approach as interpretivism. That is, the opportunity to interpret the law is permitted, as is the right to appeal to another body of government for guidance. While still considered a position of judicial restraint, it is much less inhibited.

In contrast to judicial restraint is judicial activism. The latter is used as vehicle to overrule precedent based on the belief that a Constitutional right has been compromised. A clear example of where judicial activism is often demonstrated is the Supreme Court and Appellate Court. Both bodies have gained a reputation for reversing previous decisions to right a faulty judgment.

Karyn Maier
Karyn Maier

Contributing articles to WiseGEEK is just one of Karyn’s many professional endeavors. She is also a magazine writer and columnist, mainly for health-related publications, as well as the author of four books. Karyn lives in New York’s Catskill Mountain region and specializes in topics about green living and botanical medicine.

Learn more...
Karyn Maier
Karyn Maier

Contributing articles to WiseGEEK is just one of Karyn’s many professional endeavors. She is also a magazine writer and columnist, mainly for health-related publications, as well as the author of four books. Karyn lives in New York’s Catskill Mountain region and specializes in topics about green living and botanical medicine.

Learn more...

Discuss this Article

Post your comments
Login:
Forgot password?
Register:
    • A judge's findings must be consistent with set legal precedent.
      By: Andrey Burmakin
      A judge's findings must be consistent with set legal precedent.
    • Judges who exercise judicial restraint do so to adhere to the specific language of the Constitution when ruling.
      By: milosluz
      Judges who exercise judicial restraint do so to adhere to the specific language of the Constitution when ruling.