Chicago Supreme Court Cases

One cannot discuss the history of the Supreme Court without including the history of judicial review. Judicial review is the Supreme Court’s power to examine acts and decisions of Congress that might go against the Constitution. The Court can use judicial restraint and judicial activism when making decisions. When looking into McDonald v. the City of Chicago, it is important to note the role these concepts played in this case. The Second Amendment is the most relevant framework when discussing restraint and activism. Examples of both judicial restraint and judicial activism can be identified in just this one case depending upon how you look at the facts and the way the judges ruled. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms even if they are not in the military. Although, the ruling did say this right is limited. Following this ruling, the Supreme Court struck down two Washington D.C. laws on gun control. This case serves as precedent for the McDonald case. The day after the ruling on the Heller case, Otis McDonald and others challenged a 1982 law in Chicago that banned new registration for handguns. Registration is necessary in order to possess a handgun. Therefore, people were unable to own handguns in Chicago legally, which

This decision is a matter of opinion. Ultimately, the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. the City of Chicago practiced both judicial restraint and judicial activism. It could be framed either way depending on how one looks at the case. Judicial restraint was used when precedent or stare decisis was applied and when the Court upheld the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Judicial Activism occurred when the 1982 Chicago law was overturned and policies were changed as a result of the Supreme Court’s