Define judicial activism and judicial restraint. Explain the reasons that judges would exercise activism or restraint, and tell how Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were examples of each.'
im 12 ntm big words
Judicial Activism is when judges interpret the law in a way that extends the power of the judiciary and can lead to making new laws or policies. Judicial Restraint is when judges interpret the law strictly and avoid making new laws or policies, leaving those decisions to the legislative branch.
Judges may exercise activism when they believe that there are injustices that need to be addressed or when they believe that the law is outdated and needs to be interpreted in a more progressive manner. On the other hand, judges may exercise restraint when they believe that it is not the role of the judiciary to make policy decisions and that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly as written.
Plessy v. Ferguson was an example of judicial activism, as the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of segregation laws, making a new law or policy that supported racial segregation. In contrast, Brown v. Board of Education was an example of judicial restraint, as the Supreme Court overturned the segregation laws in public schools, following a strict interpretation of the Constitution's equal protection clause.