Judicial activism in the U.S. is a hotly debated issue. While some believe it is necessary to protect rights of individuals and promote social justice through judges, others think it undermines rule of law, separation of power, and other principles. In recent times, several high profile cases have shown the impact of legal activism.
Obergefellv. Hodges was a landmark Supreme Court case in 2015, which legalized same sex marriages across the country. The court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment required all states to grant marriage licenses to couples of the same gender and to recognize marriages performed by other states. This decision has been hailed by many as a victory in the fight for LGBTQ equality. However, it has also stirred controversy from those who feel that the court went too far and legislated.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is another important case. This 2010 Supreme Court ruling held that corporations, unions and political parties have the right under the First Amendment to spend unlimited money on campaigns. This decision has been criticized because it allows wealthy interests to have a disproportionate amount of influence in politics. It also undermines trust in democracy. The court’s aggressive approach in this case, according to critics, undermined the principle “one person, one vote” and increased the influence of money on politics.
Several recent court cases have had far-reaching effects on the legal system. In Gill v. Whitford a federal judge ruled that Wisconsin’s legislative districts map was unconstitutionally drawn to favor the Republican Party in 2016. The court ordered Wisconsin to redistribute its legislative districts. This set a precedent that could be used to challenge partisan gerrymandering throughout the country. This ruling was hailed by many as a victory in the fight for voting rights and fairness, but raised questions regarding the role of courts when it comes to influencing political outcomes.
The impact of the judicial activism in the U.S. justice system is a multifaceted and complex issue, with both positive as well as negative implications. They argue that judicial advocacy is needed to protect rights of individuals, promote social injustice, and hold governments accountable. They cite cases such as Obergefell and Gill for the judiciary’s contribution to advancing civil rights, ensuring a representative and equitable democracy and promoting social justice.
However, critics contend that judicial activity undermines the separation of powers and democratic legitimacy. They claim that Citizens United is an example of judicial overreach, and violates the right to self-governance. They warn that an active judiciary could undermine the respect for the legal systems and erode the public’s trust in the courts.
Conclusion: The impact of judicial activity on the U.S. justice system is a complex issue that continues sparking debate and controversy. Recent cases such as Obergefell and Citizens United highlight the wide-ranging implications of judicial rulings on individual rights, democratic governance, and political processes. Although judicial activism is an effective tool to promote justice and equality it can also raise important questions about how the courts influence public policy. The impact of judicial activist on the legal system ultimately depends on striking a balance between protecting rights and respecting rule of law.
