Judicial activism - judges should interpret and apply the law in light of ongoing changes in conditions and values. Judicial restraint – judges should decide cases based on the original intent of those who framed the Constitution. Previous - Court decision which constitutes an example to follow in future similar cases. Majority Opinion - Officially called the Court's Opinion; announces the Court's decision in a case and sets forth the reasoning on which it is basedDissenting opinion – Written explanation of the opinions of one or more justices who disagree (dissent) with a decision rendered by the majority of the courtOpinion concurring – A written explanation of the opinions of one or more justices who support a decision made by the majority of the court, but wish to add or emphasize a point that was not made in the majority decision. The difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint is that judicial activism courts interpret the law. vaguely and will set a new precedent if necessary, particularly when it comes to cases dealing with civil rights and social welfare. Judicial restriction courts strictly adopt the law and make their decision based on how the law is stated in the Constitution. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas In the United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the issue of segregation in public schools was addressed. Oliver Brown, a local welder, assistant pastor and African American, along with several other African American parents, filed suit against the Topeka school board because their children were denied admission because of their race. The Court ruled in favor of Brown and ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Middle of paper......country against espionage far exceeded the individual rights of Korematsu and other Japanese Americans. The Court followed the law as stated and did not set new precedent regarding the situation. The Court's decision that restrictions on Japanese Americans were considered a necessary measure taken to protect the public was controversial. Even though the act of deporting Japanese American citizens to internment camps seemed to defy their citizenship rights, protecting the public outweighed the rights of Korematsu and other Japanese Americans. Korematsu v. United States impacted the U.S. government by setting a precedent for the new analysis of racial discrimination. This established new standards to be met and closely related to the 14th Amendment, which deals with citizenship rights and equal protection under the law..