Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism. Here are some aspects of judicial restraint:
- Avoiding hearing a case: Judicial restraint may lead a court to avoid hearing a case in the first place. The court may justify its decision by questioning whether the plaintiff has standing, or by refusing to grant certiorari, or by determining that the central issue of the case is a political question better decided by the executive or legislative branches of government, or by determining that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
- Deciding in favor of the status quo: Judicial restraint may lead a court to decide in favor of the status quo. In a case of judicial review, this may mean refusing to overturn an existing law unless the law is flagrantly unconstitutional. On an appeal, restraint may mean refusing to overturn the lower courts ruling.
- Respecting the principle of stare decisis: In general, restraint may mean respecting the principle of stare decisis, which means that new decisions should show "respect .
- Ruling narrowly: Judicial restraint may lead a court to rule narrowly, avoiding "unnecessary resolution of broad questions" (also known as judicial minimalism). Restrained rulings are small and case-specific, rather than broad and sweeping. Restrained rulings also hesitate to justify themselves in terms of previously unidentified rights or principles.
Judicial restraint has a long history in American legal theory and case law. U.S. Supreme Court decisions as early as Fletcher v. Peck (1810) state that judges should strike down laws only if they “feel a clear and strong conviction” of unconstitutionality. The general effect of judicial restraint is to allow the legislature and executive greater freedom to formulate policy. Its political valence has thus varied depending on the relative positions of the Supreme Court and the elected branches.
