Which concept suggests that courts should actively interpret laws to promote social change?

The concept that suggests courts should actively interpret laws to promote social change is known as judicial activism. This approach asserts that judges should go beyond merely applying the law as it is written and instead consider the broader social implications and the evolving needs of society when making their rulings.

Judicial activism is often associated with decisions that challenge established norms or that seek to expand rights and justice for marginalized groups. Proponents of this view argue that the judiciary has a role in addressing societal issues and correcting injustices, especially when the legislative branch may be slow to act or resistant to change. This perspective supports the idea that the Constitution is a living document that should adapt and respond to contemporary societal values and conditions.

In contrast, the other options reflect philosophies that favor a more restrained or traditional interpretation of the law, often limiting the role of judges to applying the letter of the law as understood at the time it was written. Judicial restraint typically encourages conservative interpretation and respect for legislative intent, while legal formalism and constitutional originalism focus on adhering to the original meanings and frameworks established by the framers of the Constitution.