No, Texas v. Johnson is not an example of judicial restraint. In fact, it is often cited as an example of judicial activism. The case involved Gregory Lee Johnson, who was convicted under Texas law for burning an American flag in protest. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that Johnson’s actions were protected under the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech.
Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy where judges limit the exercise of their own power, deferring to the decisions of elected officials and existing laws unless they clearly violate the Constitution. In contrast, judicial activism involves judges interpreting the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values and societal changes, even if it means overturning existing laws or precedents.
In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court actively interpreted the First Amendment to protect an act of protest that many found offensive. This decision demonstrated a willingness to expand constitutional protections, aligning more with judicial activism than restraint.