What does the term "judicial activism" mean?

The term "judicial activism" refers to a judicial philosophy where judges take an active role in changing or interpreting the law, often extending beyond strict legal interpretation. This practice typically involves courts making decisions that promote social justice or public policy, reflecting the belief that the judiciary can and should have a proactive role in addressing societal issues through legal interpretation.

This approach is often contrasted with judicial restraint, where judges defer to the legislative branch and seek to avoid making decisions that would create significant changes in law or policy. While the term can have a negative connotation among some critics who argue that it leads to judicial overreach, proponents believe it can help adapt the law to contemporary societal needs and support the protection of rights.

The other options address different aspects of judicial philosophy but do not accurately capture the essence of judicial activism. For example, a strict interpretation of statutes aligns more with judicial restraint, while avoidance of interference in legislative matters would also reflect a conservative approach to judicial decision-making. The use of judicial review to strike down laws is a function of both activism and restraint depending on the context, but it does not specifically define judicial activism itself.