After Homer Plessy attempted to sit in an all-white railroad car and refused to sit in the railroad car designated for Blacks, he was arrested and his case eventually reached the Supreme Court.  In Plessy v Ferguson, the Court's holding and majority opinion was that it was constitutional for states to require people of different races to use "separate but equal" facilities.  They ruled that this practice did not conflict with the 13th Amendment, which outlawed involuntary servitude. According to the Court, it also did not conflict with the 14th Amendment (which established equality between the two races) because separate facilities did not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race. In this case, Judge Harlan dissented, claiming that the decision was inconsistent with the equality of rights of citizens. Taking into account that whites were obviously the dominant race in society, he viewed these separate facilities as discrimination and an infringement upon freedom of choice. Plessy v Ferguson reflects the philosophy of judicial restraint because the Court upheld existing law. It chose to simply interpret the Constitution instead of legislate new policies. Personally, I disagree with this decision. I believe that everyone, regardless of race, should be treated equally by society.  For this to occur, everyone must have access to the same amenities.  Especially within the context of the 14th Amendment, which clearly established equality, it is clear that this Court had its own predisposition that Blacks were inferior to Whites.

In the 1961 Supreme Court case Mapp v Ohio, police officers went into Dollree Mapp's house without a search warrant.  They discovered illegal materials that they then arrested her for. She claimed that these materials should not be used against her in court because they were obtained through illegal search and seizure.  The Court's holding and majority opinion was that illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.  Its argument was that this violated the Fourth Amendment. Judge Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion, claiming that states are constitutionally free to follow their own methods for dealing with criminal problems.  This ruling demonstrates judicial activism because the Court used its power to legislate a new policy.  I agree with this decision because it is logical that law enforcement must operate according to the law in prosecuting criminals. Since the police officers entered Mapp's house without a warrant, she should not be prosecuted using these materials.  Because the police officers' actions were not in line with the Fourth Amendment, the evidence was obtained illegally.

In the the aftermath of the infamous Watergate scandal that took place under the Nixon Administration, the special prosecutor requested audio tapes that were recorded in the Oval Office.  President Nixon refused to turn over these tapes, claiming executive privilege. This matter was taken to the Supreme Court in U.S. v Nixon, where the holding and majority opinion was that the President is not above the law.  Its justification was that this evidence, which had the potential to prove Nixon guilty, outweighed executive privilege because national security was not at state.  The Court ruled against Nixon 8-0, so there were no dissenting opinions.  U.S. v Nixon reflects the philosophy of judicial restraint because the Court chose to interpret the Constitution exactly how it was written, where the President is not above the law.  I agree with this decision because I believe that the President should not be exempt from any laws that everyone else is subjected to.  This is part of the idea that everyone is equal under the law, and it is important that the President set this example.