Judicial restraint is a theory of
judicial interpretation that encourages
judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of
judicial activism. In deciding questions of
constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect
stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.