Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two very different ways of interpreting the law that should have the same goal: to ensure justice, equality, and the common good for all involved. Judicial activism is when one branch of government overturns another branch's action to protect individual rights and liberties (Krutz & Waskiewicz, 2021). At the same time, judicial restraint is when a review process upholds the previously set standard. While it is important to use judicial restraint to avoid contradicting previously well-thought-out laws and policies, it is essential to use judicial activism, especially in cases where the rights of a group of people are at stake. Our society is rapidly changing; sometimes, even the most well-thought-out laws become outdated and must be reevaluated. For example, the case of Brown versus the Board of Education in 1954 allowed for racial segregation in schools, but over time, it became clear that this policy was unjust and needed to be amended. The Supreme Court used judicial activism to rewrite this outdated, unethical law (Krutz & Waskiewicz, 2021)