Skip to main content

'Judicial activism' a convenient bogeyman

By Lisa Knepper, Special to CNN
updated 9:35 AM EDT, Fri April 6, 2012
Lisa Knepper says comments by President Obama raise the issue of
Lisa Knepper says comments by President Obama raise the issue of "judicial activism" with respect to the Supreme Court.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Lisa Knepper: Judicial activism charges raised by many over health care and Supreme Court
  • She says Obama, others warn ruling against health care act would overturn duly passed law
  • She says her firm's study found such "activism" doesn't exist. Few laws felled by court
  • Knepper: Both sides slam "activism," demand democratic outcomes, when they like them

Editor's note: Lisa Knepper is a director of strategic research at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm.

(CNN) -- The bogeyman of judicial activism is back in the news. We owe the latest round of charges to the chorus of commentators, activists and politicians — now led by President Obama himself — fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court will upend part or all of his signature health care law.

Like most accusations of activism against the courts, these pre-emptive attacks shed no real light on the constitutional questions at stake. Indeed, it is time to admit how useless — or worse — the epithet of judicial activism is.

Echoing other critics, Obama claimed that a ruling against the Affordable Care Act would be "unprecedented and extraordinary" and complained that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

Let's assume the president did not actually mean to imply that no properly enacted law could ever legitimately be found unconstitutional. Instead, let's examine the broader picture those decrying activism mean to paint: one of an imperial judiciary routinely snatching important policy decisions out of the hands of elected representatives.

That picture is false.

Lisa Knepper
Lisa Knepper

A 2011 Institute for Justice study, "Government Unchecked: The False Problem of 'Judicial Activism' and the Need for Judicial Engagement," compared the number of laws struck down by the Supreme Court to the number of laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. From 1954 to 2002, the court struck down, in whole or in part, just two-thirds of one percent of laws passed by Congress and less than one-twentieth of a percent of laws passed by state legislatures. Over those five decades, the court struck, on average, just two federal and nine state laws per year.

Toobin: Court's Obama order a 'hissy fit'

These tiny numbers and percentages of laws struck are generally consistent over time — including into the Roberts Court era, as a different data set with more recent rulings shows.

CNN Explains: Health care reform
Tea party chair: 'We want to rip out' ACA
Health care reform and Medicaid

In the balance of power between the elected and judicial branches, the scales tip heavily toward Congress and state legislatures. Nothing the court might do in the health care case will change that.

By the numbers, charges of rampant judicial activism are wildly overblown. Worse, they typically serve as a partisan club intended to foreclose healthy debate on constitutional questions.

Obama attempted to hoist conservatives — for years, advocates of judicial "restraint" and "minimalism" — with their own petard. But this game of gotcha just shows how "judicial activism" has become code for "decisions I don't like." Both sides play the activism card and demand deference to democratic outcomes, when they like them.

Claims of judicial activism have become a substitute for serious thought about the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions,and one that leads to ever-expanding government power. That's the true meaning of "deference."

But in our system of government, courts are meant to be "bulwarks" of liberty, not rubber stamps for government power. Obama gave the game away when he attempted to walk back his initial comments by pointing out that, since the days of the New Deal, the Supreme Court has rarely, if ever, struck down economic legislation.

Video: Aide: Obama knows the law

That is precisely the problem. As the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals observed in striking down the individual mandate, when Congress exceeds the outer bounds of its authority, "the Constitution requires judicial engagement, not judicial abdication." It is no accident that President Obama and other supporters of the health care law are jumping on the judicial activism bandwagon now. But years of judicial abdication in the economic realm should not justify more.

If the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the Affordable Care Act, it will not do much to upset the balance of power between the judicial and elected branches. It might, however, be a small but important step toward jettisoning years of misguided restraint and once again taking constitutional limits on government power seriously.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Lisa Knepper.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 9:05 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
updated 7:49 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
updated 1:23 PM EDT, Mon September 15, 2014
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
updated 3:38 PM EDT, Mon September 15, 2014
SEATTLE, WA - SEPTEMBER 04: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell walks the sidelines prior to the game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Green Bay Packers at CenturyLink Field on September 4, 2014 in Seattle, Washington. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)
Martha Pease says the NFL commissioner shouldn't be judge and jury on player wrongdoing.
updated 9:15 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
It's time for a much needed public reckoning over U.S. use of torture, argues Donald P. Gregg.
updated 8:25 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Peter Bergen says UK officials know the identity of the man who killed U.S. journalists and a British aid worker.
updated 7:28 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Joe Torre and Esta Soler say much has been achieved since a landmark anti-violence law was passed.
updated 4:55 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
David Wheeler wonders: If Scotland votes to secede, can America take its place and rejoin England?
updated 8:41 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Jane Stoever: Society must grapple with a culture in which 1 in 3 teen girls and women suffer partner violence.
updated 4:36 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently said the world as we know it could be obliterated instantaneously. Meg Urry says fear not.
updated 6:11 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
Bill Clinton's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 went through 22 drafts. But he always insisted on including a call to service.
updated 6:18 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
Joe Amon asks: What turns a few cases of disease into thousands?
updated 1:21 PM EDT, Thu September 11, 2014
Sally Kohn says bombing ISIS will worsen instability in Iraq and strengthen radical ideology in terrorist groups.
updated 6:31 PM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Analysts weigh in on the president's plans for addressing the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
updated 9:27 AM EDT, Thu September 11, 2014
Artist Prune Nourry's project reinterprets the terracotta warriors in an exhibition about gender preference in China.
updated 9:36 AM EDT, Wed September 10, 2014
The Apple Watch is on its way. Jeff Yang asks: Are we ready to embrace wearables technology at last?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT