What term describes a judge interpreting a statute without regard to Congressional intent?

The term that describes a judge interpreting a statute without regard to Congressional intent is judicial activism. This approach involves judges taking an active role in shaping the law, often by interpreting statutes in a way that may deviate from the original intent of the lawmakers. Judicial activism is characterized by a willingness to utilize broader interpretations of the law, which can lead to significant changes in legal precedents or the development of new legal principles.

In contrast, the other concepts provide different frameworks for understanding judicial behavior. Judicial passivism typically refers to a more restrained approach where judges defer to legislative intent and avoid making broad interpretations. Precedent involves the legal principle that past judicial decisions should influence future cases, which contrasts with the idea of disregarding original intent. Judicial review is the power of courts to assess whether a law is constitutional, but it does not inherently involve the interpretation of statutes outside their intended meaning.