Judicial restraint

Judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges should be cautious about overriding the decisions of elected legislatures and executives. A restrained judge decides cases on the narrowest available grounds, avoids constitutional questions when a statute can resolve a case, respects precedent and invalidates a law only when its unconstitutionality is clear.

The idea is often associated with James Bradley Thayer, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Felix Frankfurter. Tools of restraint include strict rules on standing, the political question doctrine, the presumption that statutes are constitutional and deference to stare decisis.

Restraint and originalism are related but can pull in different directions. Some conservatives emphasize restraint and deference to legislatures; others argue that faithfully applying the original Constitution sometimes requires actively striking down laws and overruling precedent, which they call "judicial engagement." Critics on the left say restraint can leave rights unprotected; critics on the right say it can entrench mistaken precedents. It is generally contrasted with judicial activism.