What is judicial activism?

Judicial activism refers to the practice where judges take an active role in interpreting laws and the Constitution in a manner that reflects contemporary values and societal changes, rather than adhering strictly to the original intent or text. This approach allows the judiciary to evolve legal interpretations and adapt them to current circumstances and issues, recognizing that society is dynamic and that laws must also adapt to maintain relevance.

This practice contrasts with a more originalist interpretation, where judges might focus solely on the Constitution's text or its framers' intent, thereby resisting changes that reflect modern societal views. Engaging in judicial activism can sometimes result in significant rulings that can redefine rights and influence public policy, making it a powerful aspect of judicial decision-making.

Judicial activism is often contrasted with judicial restraint, where judges limit their own power and deference to legislative bodies, emphasizing legal precedents and previous rulings without too much reinterpretation based on current societal values.