A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Judicial restraint is a principle that guides judges to avoid making decisions based on their personal beliefs and instead interpret the law as it is written and based on previous court decisions. This means that judges should only rule on the specific issue at hand and not make unnecessary decisions that could impact future cases.

For example, if a court is deciding a case about a person's right to free speech, the judge should only consider the facts of that case and not make a ruling on a related issue, such as the right to bear arms. This is because the judge's decision on the right to bear arms would not be relevant to the case at hand and could create confusion in future cases.

Judicial restraint is often contrasted with judicial activism, which is the idea that judges should use their power to make decisions that promote social justice and equality, even if it means going beyond the strict interpretation of the law.