Judicial activism refers to judges interpreting laws to expand fundamental rights, while judicial restraint involves limiting their power and deferring to other branches of government. Reasons for activism can include correcting injustices and promoting social change, while restraint may be based on upholding separation of powers and avoiding controversy. Plessy v. Ferguson exemplified judicial restraint by upholding segregation laws, while Brown v. Board of Education exemplified activism by overturning the doctrine of "separate but equal." Judges' decisions on activism or restraint depend on their beliefs and the legal context of the cases.
Judicial activism means judges make laws more fair and just by expanding rights, while judicial restraint means judges limit their power and let other branches of government make decisions. Activism can correct injustices and promote change, while restraint can uphold the separation of powers and avoid controversy. For example, Brown v. Board of Education showed activism by ending segregation, while Plessy v. Ferguson showed restraint by allowing segregation laws. Judges decide whether to be more active or restrained based on their beliefs and the laws in each case.
