Judicial activism

Judicial activism refers to the practice whereby judges and courts interpret and apply the law in ways that can lead to significant changes in public policy or societal norms. It often involves judges stepping away from a strict interpretation of the law and instead making rulings based on broader principles, such as justice, fairness, or social welfare.

Judicial activism in India refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the law, particularly when it comes to protecting fundamental rights and ensuring justice. This concept contrasts with judicial restraint, where courts may avoid making decisions that could be seen as overstepping their boundaries or interfering with the functions of the legislature or executive.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2010 that significantly changed the landscape of campaign finance in the United States. The case arose from a dispute regarding the application of campaign finance laws to a documentary film produced by the nonprofit organization Citizens United, which criticized then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election.

Demand Justice is a progressive advocacy organization focused on reforming the U.S. judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. Founded in 2018, the organization aims to promote a vision of the judicial system that prioritizes fairness, accountability, and representation.

The International Conference of Chief Justices of the World is a gathering of the highest-ranking judicial officers from various countries to discuss issues related to justice, the rule of law, and judicial administration. This conference typically aims to promote dialogue among chief justices on significant challenges faced by legal systems globally. The conference provides a platform for sharing best practices, discussing common challenges in the judiciary, and exploring ways to enhance judicial independence and the effectiveness of legal systems.

Judicial restraint is a legal philosophy that encourages courts to limit their own power and avoid interfering with the operations of the legislative and executive branches of government. The principle promotes the idea that judges should interpret the law based on its original meaning and intent, and should uphold laws unless they clearly violate the Constitution. Proponents of judicial restraint believe that judicial intervention can disrupt the balance of power among the branches of government and that elected officials, rather than judges, are better suited to make policy decisions affecting society.

The phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" suggests that if justice is not delivered in a timely manner, it effectively becomes meaningless. This concept highlights the importance of providing prompt legal resolutions and ensuring that individuals have access to a fair and efficient judicial process. Delays in legal proceedings can undermine faith in the justice system, harm victims, and allow injustices to persist.

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in the United States that protects government officials, including law enforcement officers, from being held personally liable for constitutional violations unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right. This means that even if a government official's actions are found to be unconstitutional, they may still be immune from liability in civil suits if the right in question was not clearly established at the time of their actions.

Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, decided on January 22, 1973. The case established a woman's legal right to have an abortion under the constitutional right to privacy. It was brought by "Jane Roe," a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey, who challenged Texas laws that criminalized most abortions.

**United States v. Texas (2021)** is a significant case concerning immigration policy that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. It primarily addressed a challenge brought by the state of Texas and other states against the Biden administration's attempts to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy.