Judicial Restraint In The Supreme Court

When justices on the bench of the United States Supreme Court make their respective decisions on a case, they are faced with two outcomes. The first is that they can decide to overturn a decision from a lower court, deem a federal law unconstitutional, or nullify other federal or state statute. When the Supreme Court changes previous statute or overturns a previous court decision, it is judicial activism. But when the Supreme Court decides to uphold precedent, upholding laws passed by Congress or state legislatures, or strictly adhering to the original text of the Constitution, it is judicial restraint. Although the aforementioned terms do not have any overlap in their definitions, it can often be seen that both of these judicial practices can be implemented in a single Supreme Court ruling. One of these cases in which this can be seen is United States v. Eichman, which was a case ruled in 1990 regarding the legality of flag burning on the grounds of First Amendment protections. When the Supreme Court rules on a case, it can use its power …show more content…
Eichman, it can also be seen that judicial restraint is applied. Judicial restraint can be seen in the Eichman case because the Court respected the precedent decision of Texas v. Johnson, a case ruled about a year prior. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that desecrating the American flag is protected under First Amendment rights. The Court stated that it is not acceptable for the law to criminalize an action just because it is “offensive or disagreeable” in nature. In United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court simply upheld this ruling, with just a few more provisions. When Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, the Court upheld the Johnson ruling by deciding on the Eichman case in a 5-4 decision. Because the Supreme Court ruled on United States v. Eichman with the intention of completely respecting the Texas v. Johnson decision, it can be seen that judicial restraint was