Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation—a theory of how judges interpret laws. Like most abstract theories, definitions vary slightly according to different sources. In general, judicial restraint is the concept of a judge not injecting his or her own preferences into legal proceedings and rulings.[1][2]
Judges are said to exercise judicial restraint if they are hesitant to strike down laws that are not obviously unconstitutional. It is considered the opposite of judicial activism (also referred to as "legislating from the bench"). In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists believe that it is important to defer to legislative intent, stare decisis, the Plain Meaning Rule, and a generally strict
Judges are said to exercise judicial restraint if they are hesitant to strike down laws that are not obviously unconstitutional. It is considered the opposite of judicial activism (also referred to as "legislating from the bench"). In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists believe that it is important to defer to legislative intent, stare decisis, the Plain Meaning Rule, and a generally strict