What does "judicial restraint" mean?

Judicial restraint refers to a legal philosophy that emphasizes the limited role of judges in the interpretation of law. Specifically, it advocates that judges should avoid overstepping their authority by creating new laws or imposing personal beliefs when making decisions. Instead, they should closely follow established legal precedents and respect the decisions made by legislatures. This principle aims to preserve the balance of power among the branches of government by ensuring that judges do not engage in judicial activism, which can lead to significant changes in law and policy without legislative input.

By adhering closely to precedent, judges exhibiting restraint show deference to the rule of law and the interpretations made by their predecessors, reinforcing stability and predictability in the legal system. This approach fosters respect for the legislative process and allows elected officials to have the primary role in creating and amending laws, rather than judges usurping that function. As such, the correct understanding of judicial restraint highlights a commitment to limitation and restraint in judicial decision-making.