When Judges Legislate: The Conservative Case Against Judicial Activism

In a republic built on checks and balances, power is not meant to be concentrated — and certainly not in the hands of unelected judges. Yet for decades, judicial activism has quietly transferred that power from the people’s representatives to the bench, turning courtrooms into policymaking arenas. This trend threatens not only the balance of our constitutional system, but the very foundation of our self-governance.

As President Ronald Reagan once warned,

“Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it. They’re not social engineers.”

That’s not just political rhetoric. That’s the cornerstone of judicial restraint — a principle under siege.

What Is Judicial Activism?

Judicial activism happens when judges substitute their own personal beliefs or political ideology for the plain meaning of the law or the original intent of the Constitution. Rather than ruling based on the facts, the law, and the Constitution as written, activist judges stretch, twist, and reinvent the law to achieve policy goals.

The left calls it “progress.” Conservatives call it what it is: an abuse of judicial power.

This activism bypasses legislatures and sidelines voters. It replaces debate with decree. It turns the judiciary into a super-legislature — accountable to no one, removed from the ballot box, and dangerously unchecked.

Hallmarks of Activism

Judicial activism isn’t always about outcome — it’s about approach. Here are the warning signs:

• Creating new rights that don’t exist in the Constitution

• Striking down laws based on subjective moral reasoning rather than constitutional analysis

• Citing foreign laws or evolving standards rather than American founding principles

• Overriding state legislatures or Congress with sweeping decisions that reshape public policy

In each case, the judge stops interpreting the law and starts making it.

Classic Examples

For decades, liberal courts used judicial activism to push a progressive agenda that could not pass through the democratic process:

• Roe v. Wade (1973) – The Supreme Court manufactured a nationwide right to abortion out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, overriding the will of the states.

• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – A narrow 5-4 majority redefined marriage for all 50 states, not by constitutional text or tradition, but by invoking an evolving sense of liberty.

• Engel v. Vitale (1962) – The Court banned school prayer, twisting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause far beyond its original purpose.

None of these rulings were grounded in clear constitutional language. They were driven by ideology and social engineering — exactly what Reagan warned against.

Recent Liberal Judicial Activism

Even today, activist rulings from liberal judges continue to shape public policy with a pen rather than a vote:

• Abortion Shield Laws – Judges in blue states have blocked enforcement of pro-life protections and created “sanctuary states” for abortion, undermining federalism and trampling the rights of other states.

• Nationwide Injunctions on Immigration – Liberal judges have used national injunctions to block Trump-era border policies, even when the Supreme Court later ruled those policies were lawful.

• Climate Rulings Beyond the Law – In 2023, activist judges expanded the scope of environmental laws to block fossil fuel development — not based on the statute, but to appease climate radicals.

These rulings are not about justice. They are about control.

But What About Conservative Judges?

Conservatives must be honest with ourselves: there are recent cases where conservative-appointed judges have also crossed into activist territory.

• Student Loan Case (Biden v. Nebraska, 2023) – While the ruling struck down an unconstitutional executive overreach, some scholars questioned whether the states had proper standing to sue — a potential example of judicial creativity used to reach the right outcome.

• West Virginia v. EPA (2022) – The Court rightly reined in unelected bureaucrats, but used a new “major questions doctrine” that isn't firmly rooted in the Constitution.

• Texas SB4 Immigration Law (2024) – Conservative judges upheld a state-level immigration law, arguably in conflict with federal authority. The ruling aligned with policy goals — but strained federalism principles.

We must be cautious not to embrace judicial activism simply because it happens to work in our favor. If we abandon principle for policy wins, we lose the moral high ground that gave our movement its strength in the first place.

The Real Danger: Undermining Democracy

When judges act as legislators, the people are silenced. Decisions once made through elections are now handed down by elites in robes.

The American people didn’t vote on Roe. Or Obergefell. Or DACA. Or massive climate rules written by unelected bureaucrats and rubber-stamped by friendly judges.

This isn’t democracy. It’s government by judiciary.

The Conservative Answer: Judicial Restraint

True constitutional conservatives reject activism — no matter which side of the aisle it benefits. We embrace originalism, textualism, and restraint.

• Originalism means interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning, not modern fads.

• Textualism means applying the plain words of a statute as written.

• Restraint means knowing the limits of judicial power and deferring to the people and their elected representatives.

Justice Antonin Scalia put it best:

“If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach.”

That’s integrity. That’s principle. That’s what we need from every judge — left, right, or center.

Final Thoughts: Let the People Rule

America doesn’t need philosopher kings in black robes. We need judges who follow the law and let the people decide the rest.

Judicial activism — no matter who engages in it — is a threat to the republic. If we want to preserve the rule of law, we must demand judicial restraint, reject policymaking from the bench, and restore the separation of powers our founders designed.

The future of self-government depends on it.

#judicialactivism #RuleOfLaw #originalism #SeparationOfPowers #SCOTUS #ReaganWisdom #letthepeoplerule #ConstitutionalConservatism