布朗诉教育委员会（1954年）是沃伦法院最受欢迎的司法激进主义案例之一。沃伦法官发表了多数意见，认为隔离学校违反了第十四修正案的平等保护条款。该裁决有效地打击了种族隔离，发现通过种族分离学生创造了本质上不平等的学习环境。这是司法激进主义的一个例子，因为该裁决推翻了普莱西诉弗格森案，其中法院认为只要设施相等，设施就可以隔离开来。法院不必推翻案件，因为它被贴上了活动家的标签。当法院通过分权行使法律，行使赋予法院系统的权力时，该决定可被视为维权人士。在Lochner v.New York（1905）中，一家面包店的老板Lochner起诉纽约州，因为他违反了州法律“Bakeshop法案”。法案限制面包师每周工作不到60小时，州政府两次罚款Lochner，允许他的一名工人在商店里花费60多个小时。最高法院裁定，“Bakeshop法案”违反了第十四修正案的正当程序条款，因为它违反了个人的合同自由。通过使纽约法律无效并干涉立法机关，法院赞成采取激进主义的做法。活动家和自由主义者不是同义词。在2000年的总统大选中，民主党候选人戈尔对佛罗里达州9000多张选票的结果提出质疑，这些选票并未标志着戈尔或共和党候选人乔治·W·布什。佛罗里达州最高法院发布了重新计票，但布什的竞选伙伴迪克切尼要求最高法院审查重新计票。在布什诉戈尔案中，最高法院裁定，根据第十四修正案的平等保护条款，佛罗里达州的重新计票是违宪的，因为该州没有制定统一的重新计票程序，并以不同的方式处理每次投票。法院还裁定，根据“宪法”第三条，佛罗里达州没有时间制定单独，适当重新计票的程序。尽管这意味着保守的候选人赢得了2000年的总统大选，但法院干预了一项影响国家的国家决定，采取了激进主义的态度。
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is one of the most popular examples of judicial activism to come out of the Warren Court. Justice Warren delivered the majority opinion, which found that segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling effectively struck down segregation, finding that separating students by race created inherently unequal learning environments. This is an example of judicial activism because the ruling overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in which the Court had reasoned that facilities could be segregated as long as they were equal. A court does not have to overturn a case for it to be labeled activist. When a court strikes down a law, exercising the powers given to the court system through the separation of powers, the decision may be viewed as activist. In Lochner v. New York (1905), Lochner, the owner of a bakeshop, sued the state of New York for finding him in violation of the Bakeshop Act, a state law. The Act limited bakers to working less than 60 hours per week and the state fined Lochner twice for allowing one of his workers to spend over 60 hours in the shop. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bakeshop Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed on an individual’s freedom of contract. By invalidating a New York law and interfering with the legislature, the Court favored an activist approach. Activist and liberal are not synonymous. In the 2000 presidential election, Democratic candidate Al Gore contested the results of over 9000 ballots in Florida which did not mark either Gore or Republican candidate George W. Bush. Florida’s Supreme Court issued a recount, but Dick Cheney, Bush’s running mate, called for the Supreme Court to review the recount. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court ruled that Florida’s recount was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the state failed to institute a uniform procedure for the recount and handled each ballot differently. The Court also ruled that under Article III of the Constitution, Florida did not have time to develop a procedure for a separate, proper recount. The Court intervened in a state decision that affected the nation, taking an activist approach, even though it meant a conservative candidate won the 2000 presidential election.