Despite the explosion of political power over the last 50 years, commentators and scholars of all ideological stripes appear to worry more about the growth of judicial power. Those who decry so-called “judicial activism” complain that the Supreme Court too frequently strikes down the acts of elected representatives, infringes on the prerogatives of the executive branch or upends settled law by overturning its own precedents. In this lecture Clark Neily, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, puts those claims to the test with empirical data and concludes that we suffer not from rampant judicial activism, but rather from too little judicial engagement. SLS professor Norman Spaulding will provide a critique of the lecture.