Legal Definitions - judge-made law

Judge-made law refers to legal principles and rules that originate from the decisions of judges in court cases, rather than from laws passed by a legislative body (like a parliament or congress). It can arise in two primary ways: through the development of common law principles over time, or through judicial interpretation of existing statutes that effectively creates new legal applications or meanings.

• Sense 1: Law developed through judicial precedent (Common Law)

  This form of judge-made law is built upon the principle of stare decisis, meaning "to stand by things decided." When judges decide a case, their ruling often sets a precedent that lower courts, and sometimes even higher courts, must follow in similar future cases. Over many years, a body of law can develop purely from these judicial decisions, without any specific statute being enacted by the legislature.

  Example: Imagine a situation centuries ago where there was no specific statute defining when one landowner's activities unfairly interfered with another's enjoyment of their property. Judges, responding to complaints about things like excessive noise, foul odors, or encroaching tree branches, began to issue rulings. Over time, these individual rulings established principles about what constitutes an unreasonable interference (a "nuisance"), what remedies are available, and what defenses might apply. This entire body of law, defining rights and responsibilities between neighbors regarding property use, largely grew out of these accumulated judicial decisions rather than a single legislative act.

  Explanation: This illustrates judge-made law because the detailed rules and principles governing nuisance claims were not created by a legislature. Instead, they were incrementally developed and refined by judges through a long series of court cases, with each decision contributing to the evolving legal framework.

• Sense 2: Law created through statutory interpretation that expands or alters legislative intent

  The second way judges "make law" occurs when they interpret existing statutes. While the primary role of a judge is to apply the law as written by the legislature, sometimes statutes are ambiguous, or new situations arise that the original lawmakers could not have foreseen. In these instances, a judge's interpretation can significantly expand, narrow, or even alter the practical effect of a statute, effectively creating new legal rules or applications that were not explicitly intended by the legislature. This can sometimes be controversial and is occasionally referred to as "judicial legislation."

  Example: Consider a federal law passed in the 1970s designed to protect "navigable waters" from pollution. At the time, "navigable waters" was generally understood to mean large rivers and lakes that could be used for commercial shipping. Decades later, environmental groups might argue that the law should also apply to smaller streams and wetlands that feed into these larger bodies of water, even if they aren't directly navigable by boats. If a court rules that these smaller waterways are indeed covered by the statute, interpreting "navigable waters" much more broadly than originally conceived, it effectively expands the reach of the law to protect areas not explicitly considered by the original lawmakers.

  Explanation: This demonstrates judge-made law because the court's interpretation of the term "navigable waters" significantly expanded the scope and application of an existing statute. By giving the term a new, broader meaning, the judges effectively created new legal obligations and protections that were not explicitly detailed or perhaps even envisioned by the legislature when the law was first enacted.