Judicial activism differs from judicial restraint in their approaches to interpreting the Constitution and laws. Judicial activism advocates for a more active role of the judiciary in interpreting laws, often to advance social justice or protect individual rights, even if it means overturning legislative decisions. In contrast, judicial restraint promotes the idea that courts should defer to elected bodies and exercise caution in overturning laws, emphasizing traditional interpretations of the Constitution. The tension between these philosophies shapes significant legal precedents and influences the balance of power among government branches.