In American jurisprudence, “liberal” jurists are often portrayed as judicial activists, while “conservative” jurists are often described as practitioners of judicial restraint. Whereas judicial activism promotes using the judiciary to achieve social goals, judicial restraint presumes that acts of government are constitutional, and thus courts should be reluctant to overrule the will of legislative majorities. Both judicial philosophies are flawed. While judicial activists are rightly criticized for “legislating from the bench,” adherents of judicial restraint are misguided in placing majoritarian considerations ahead of constitutionalism. The debate over judicial philosophy in American constitutional law, however, is much more complex than a two-sided clash between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In fact, there is a third type of judicial philosophy — responsible judicial engagement — which effectively balances the competing forces of judicial activism and judicial restraint while maintaining a strong commitment to the U.S. Constitution. This article argues that the federal judiciary has a duty to practice responsible judicial engagement and to refrain from potentially dangerous judicial restraint and judicial activism.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 as unconstitutional in its landmark decision in United States v. Lopez. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist explained that the law exceeded Congress’s authority to legislate under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This decision marked one of the few instances in recent history in which the Court engaged in a responsible interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This article argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should continue to responsibly interpret the Commerce Clause to hold Congress accountable to its limited, defined powers under the Constitution. Doing so is imperative to protecting our nation’s foundational commitment to federalism and state sovereignty.