The case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. is often cited as an example of judicial restraint rather than judicial activism. This case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985, involved the search of a high school student’s purse by school officials, which led to the discovery of drugs and drug paraphernalia. The Court ruled that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In its decision, the Supreme Court balanced the need for school officials to maintain order and discipline against the privacy rights of students. The Court concluded that school officials do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a search, but rather only reasonable suspicion. This ruling was seen as a moderate approach, as it did not extend full Fourth Amendment protections to students but also did not give school officials unlimited authority to search students.
Judicial restraint is evident in this case because the Court deferred to the practical needs of school administrators while still providing some level of constitutional protection to students. The decision did not create new rights or significantly expand existing ones, which is a hallmark of judicial restraint. Instead, it carefully balanced competing interests and provided a clear, practical standard for school searches.
In contrast, judicial activism typically involves judges interpreting the Constitution in a way that significantly expands individual rights or limits government power, often going beyond the text of the Constitution. The New Jersey v. T.L.O. decision did not do this; it provided a balanced and practical approach to a specific issue, which is more characteristic of judicial restraint.