On Warren Court’s Judicial Activism And Its Limitations

Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism has appeared alternately in thedevelopment history of the United States Supreme Court. Since the birth ofconstitutional review in the early19th century, Judicial Activism has gradually knownto all and drawn people’s close attention. The Warren Court1954-1969is a typicalperiod of Judicial Activism, which has applied positive attitude to bring Americansociety with a profound revolution under the leadership of Warren and other liberaljustices. Not only has it promoted the profound social change, but also has contributedto the growth of the law itself. However, along with the prevalence of judicialactivism in the1800s is the risk and threat that has begun to hurt people’s sensitivenerve. People began to realize that the judiciary might at any time get rid ofconstraints of separation of powers under the Constitution so as to march to judicialarbitrariness by virtue of this two-edged sword while removing social illness. Sincethen, people have been mature and cautious while dealing with Judicial Activism.How to limit the former in a safe range has become the study subject of the justicesand other legal personnel.There is no doubt that Warren Court is a glorious period in the history of the U.S.Supreme Court, thanks to its appropriate use of Judicial Activism. The latter makes itan integral part of the academic study of the limitation of Judicial Activism. Browncase which has been regarded as opening of its Judicial Activism becomes the focusof attention. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the Brown case may contribute tothe clarification of the background, purpose, processes and social effects that judgesof the supreme court applied Judicial Activism for, and so as to the spirit of theConstitution behind it; to the understanding the limitations within which the justicesplay in order to maintain the good effects and to achieve a balance of power insociety; to deep consideration and supplement on the limitation of Judicial Activismon the basis of the above said so as to provide guidance for future judicial practice.This thesis can be divided into three parts except the introduction and conclusion.The first part illustrates the court behavior between Judicial Restraint and JudicialActivism. It makes efforts to lead out the introduction of Warren Court and its judicialactivism on the basis of the brief introduction of the resource, meaning and developing course of Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism. The second partfocuses on the range of Judicial Activism occurred in the Brown case. The justicesthere have made full use of Judicial Activism to make a new interpretation ofFourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus to overthrow the precedentsettled in Scott case and Plessey case. However, while this activism promotes socialprogress, it also bring in the risk of destroying the balance of power and hazarding thedemocratic politics. The third part emphasizes on the supplement and distillation ofthe limitation of Judicial Activism based on the summary of the limitation settled byWarren Court. The appropriate use of Judicial Activism requires a limitation on itsrange, i.e. the review falls into only two categories known as “the procedural laws”blocking the political process and “the substantial laws” ensuring the effectiverepresentation of the minorities. Besides, it shall subject to the new-minimalismdoctrine known as the principle of “Narrow”,“Shallow”,“Grace” and the Non-reviewof the purely political issues. Among them, the "narrow " refers to the judgment in thecase should be inclined to solve specific problems, rather than an evaluation of othercases; the " Shallow " refers to the avoidance of fundamental principles when thejustices do not grasp all the information in the case; while " Grace" means that, thereneeds a certain " grace period " from reaching a judgment to executing it, thuscreating opportunities for the judiciary and other government agencies for negotiation.Finally, the limitations of Judicial Activism also largely benefit from citizenshipsupervision and self-restraint of judges and courts.