The need for judicial restraint

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that takes an important step in recognizing the need for judicial restraint. While many reports have focused on the larger case involved, which this ruling doesn’t address, some have ignored the importance of the decision in the big picture.

Students of history have long admired the genius of the Founders in establishing the three branches of government and the system of checks and balances in our federal government, which is mirrored in state governments. One of the interesting facets of separation of powers is the question of the authority of the judicial branch of government.

An honest review of those Founders’ original intent for the judiciary reveals that it was designed to be the final arbiter of legal cases, but not the final word on all things governmental, involving all three branches of government, much less the final word on Constitutionality. That’s largely how it has functioned in recent history, however, which is just fine with many who love the idea of judicial supremacy and judicial activism but troubling to those who favor faithfulness to the Constitution and original intent.

The Court’s desire to expand its power is nothing new. The U.S. Supreme Court famously, in effect, increased its own power by simply declaring itself the final arbiter of Constitutionality in the Marbury v. Madison decision. Many judicial power grabs have occurred in the years since.

The understanding of the Founding Fathers, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution, however, is something different. It gives none of the three branches supremacy when it comes to determining what is and what isn’t constitutional. Instead, it established three independent branches of government, each of which could check the power of the others, to some degree, but none of which reigns supreme.

Of course, this creates constant tension, but the Founders found that healthy (we wrote previously about the Separation of Powers and the tension it creates among the branches of government here).

The U.S. Supreme Court has now exercised judicial restraint and insisted that lower federal courts do the same. That’s refreshing.

In recent decades, federal judges have issued injunctions involving presidential actions that sought to bind the entire nation on a given matter — clearly overreaching. This abuse was not unique to judges of a particular political persuasion, nor injurious of presidential administrations of a single political party. It occurred six times in President George W. Bush’s administration, 12 times in President Obama’s administration, 64 times in President Trump’s first administration, 22 times in President Biden’s administration, and an amazing 40 times, already, in the first few months of President Trump’s second term.

The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes down the power lone federal judges have assumed for themselves to issue sweeping edicts affecting the entire nation, thwarting the work of the executive branch of the federal government. 

This is a move in the right direction for courts that have demonstrated activism for so long. Let’s hope such responsibility and judicial restraint continue and grow. Our country will be better for it.