AbstractsLaw & Legal Studies

Judicial activism and the Warren Court became synonymous, in the 1980's, with the rise of originalism. However, the first time the term, judicial activism, was employed it was applied to the Hughes Court. This thesis compares the two Courts to determine if the originalist labeling of the Warren Court as an activist court is appropriate. The evidence presented in this thesis demonstrates that judicial activism is a term that fails to capture the inherent complexities found in the interpretation of constitutional law when applied to either Court. It further suggests that originalism, as a jurisprudential theory, would be capable of producing the same type of results oriented decisions that originalists accused the Warren Court rendering.