Activist judges are actually less likely to strike down laws than commonly thought; they prefer to 'bully' the state into changing them behind the scenes.
April 1, 2026
Original Paper
Reconceptualizing Judicial Activism: Intervention Versus Involvement in the Israeli Supreme Court
SSRN · 6387300
The Takeaway
Public debate often frames judicial activism as judges 'overturning' democracy. This research reveals that judges instead use 'covert involvement'—dragging out cases and pressuring politicians to rewrite policies to avoid the public spectacle of a final ruling.
From the abstract
The paper conceptualizes two distinct yet interconnected modes of judicial activism: courts as intervening in the policies and actions of other branches of government and courts as involved in their policymaking process. It proposes empirical methods to assess these modes and investigates them using a case study of Israeli Supreme Court justices' votes from 2010 to 2018. Contrary to common perception, the findings reveal that justices demonstrate low and declining tendencies to invalidate laws (