Judicial restraint

EN Texto em inglês Ainda não há artigo no seu idioma: trecho em inglês.

Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism. Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; and a tendency to deliver narrowly tailored verdicts, avoiding "unnecessary resolution of broad questions." Judicial restraint may lead a court to avoid hearing a case in the first place. The court may justify its decision by questioning whether the plaintiff has standing; by refusing to grant certiorari; by determining that the central issue of the case is a political question better decided by the executive or legislative branches of government; or by determining that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Judicial restraint may lead a court to decide in favor of the status quo. In a case of judicial review, this may mean refusing to overturn an existing law unless the law is flagrantly unconstitutional (though what counts as "flagrantly unconstitutional" is itself a matter of some debate). On an appeal, restraint may mean refusing to overturn the lower court's ruling. In general, restraint may mean respecting the principle of stare decisis, which holds that new decisions should show "respect [...] for [the court's] own previous decisions." Judicial restraint may lead a court to rule narrowly, avoiding "unnecessary resolution of broad questions" (an approach known as judicial minimalism). Restrained rulings are small and case-specific, rather than broad and sweeping. Restrained rulings hesitate to justify themselves in terms of previously unidentified rights or principles.