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.
Judicial activism refers to judges interpreting the law in ways that actively promote social change or address perceived injustices, while judicial restraint involves judges strictly interpreting the law as written without injecting personal beliefs or values. Judges may exercise activism to promote equality and justice, while they may exercise restraint to uphold the principles of separation of powers and defer to legislative decisions. Plessy v. Ferguson exemplified judicial restraint by upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation, while Brown v. Board of Education demonstrated judicial activism by overturning Plessy and declaring segregation unconstitutional.
