Judicial activism facts for kids

Judicial activism is a term used to describe when judges make important decisions based on their own ideas about what is fair or right, instead of strictly following the exact words of the law or past court decisions. It's like a judge using their personal opinion to guide their ruling, rather than just applying the rules that are already written.

This idea is often compared to judicial restraint, which is when judges try to stick very closely to the law as it is written and to previous court rulings.

What is Judicial Activism?

Judicial activism happens when a court, especially a high court, makes a decision that many people feel goes beyond simply interpreting the law. Instead, they believe the court is creating new laws or changing society in a big way. This can be a very debated topic.

Why Do People Talk About It?

People often talk about judicial activism when a court's decision seems to:

• Change a long-standing legal tradition.
• Address a social issue that many think should be decided by lawmakers (like a parliament or congress), not judges.
• Go against what the public generally believes.

Who Are the Judges?

Judges are important people in the legal system. They are chosen or elected to make sure laws are followed fairly. Their job is to listen to arguments, look at evidence, and decide cases based on the law.

How Do Judges Make Decisions?

Judges usually look at several things when making a decision:

• The written law: What do the laws actually say?
• Previous cases: What have other courts decided in similar situations? This is called precedent.
• The facts of the case: What exactly happened in the situation they are judging?

When a judge is accused of judicial activism, it means some people think they are not giving enough importance to the written law or precedent, and too much importance to their own views.

History of the Idea

The term "judicial activism" was first used in 1947 by an American historian named Arthur Schlesinger Jr. He wrote about the United States Supreme Court and how some judges seemed more willing to make big changes through their decisions.

Different Views on Activism

Not everyone agrees on what counts as judicial activism. What one person sees as a judge overstepping their role, another might see as a judge bravely protecting rights or updating old laws for modern times.

When is it Good or Bad?

• Supporters of some "activist" decisions might say that judges need to be active to protect the rights of minorities or to make sure the government follows the constitution. They might argue that sometimes laws are old or unfair, and judges must step in.
• Critics often worry that judicial activism gives too much power to judges, who are not elected by the people. They believe that major changes to society or law should come from elected representatives who are accountable to the public.

Judicial Activism Around the World

The idea of judicial activism isn't just in one country. Courts in many places, like Canada, Australia, India, and the United Kingdom, have faced similar discussions about how much power judges should have in shaping laws and society.

Examples of Debates

While we won't go into specific complex legal cases, imagine a situation where:

• A court decides that a certain old law about technology no longer makes sense in the digital age and interprets it in a new way.
• A court rules on a social issue, like equal rights for different groups, in a way that changes how society works.

These kinds of decisions often lead to debates about whether the judges were being "activist" or simply doing their job to ensure justice.

See also

In Spanish: Activismo judicial para niños