What is "judicial restraint"?

Judicial restraint is understood as a philosophy advocating that courts should defer to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches of government. This philosophy holds that judges should interpret the law based on the original intent of the law’s creators rather than actively engaging in policy-making or expanding their role in the legislative process. Proponents of judicial restraint believe that elected representatives are better suited to make policy choices that reflect the will of the people. They argue that the judiciary should avoid overturning laws unless they are clearly unconstitutional, thus preserving the balance of power among the branches of government and upholding democratic principles.

In contrast, other philosophies, such as judicial activism, would encourage courts to take a more active role in shaping policy or addressing societal issues through interpretation of the law. The notion that courts should create new laws runs counter to the principle of judicial restraint, which focuses on restraint from such actions. Judicial review, while a critical power of the courts, does not inherently connect to the philosophy of restraint; rather, it is a tool that can be used in both restrained and activist approaches.