Judicial activism

Judicial activism is when courts interpret laws in a way that sets precedents for future rulings. The legitimacy of such practices is the source of some debate as some believe that this is equivalent to courts passing laws using judicial fiat. Some say that this practice should be frowned upon because it allows judges to substitute their personal morals and judgement for the laws themselves. Others claim that this is a legitimate use of the power to interpret laws that is granted to the courts by the constitution, noting the fact that higher courts are not required to follow precedents set by lower courts.

The Warren Court has been accused of engaging judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, judicial supremacy.