Legal Definitions - interpretivism

Interpretivism is a legal theory of constitutional interpretation which holds that judges, when deciding constitutional issues, must base their decisions on norms or values that are either explicitly stated or clearly implied within the language of the Constitution itself. This approach emphasizes fidelity to the written text and its direct implications, rather than relying on external moral principles, evolving societal values, or the judge's personal policy preferences that cannot be directly traced back to the constitutional document.

Here are some examples illustrating interpretivism:

• Case of Free Speech and Public Assembly: Imagine a state law that prohibits any public gathering of more than ten people without a special permit, even for peaceful protests. A group challenging this law argues it violates their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly. An interpretivist judge would primarily examine the precise wording of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...") and established legal precedents that directly interpret this text. The judge would focus on whether the state law's restrictions are consistent with the explicit protections for speech and assembly found in the Constitution, rather than considering broader societal benefits of public order that are not clearly rooted in the constitutional text.

  This illustrates interpretivism because the judge's analysis is confined to the explicit language of the First Amendment and its direct legal interpretations, seeking to enforce only those norms clearly articulated or implied by the document itself.

• Privacy Rights and Digital Data: Consider a new federal statute that mandates all internet service providers to store users' browsing histories for five years and make them accessible to law enforcement without a warrant. A civil liberties organization challenges this law, arguing it infringes upon a fundamental right to privacy. An interpretivist judge, while acknowledging the importance of privacy, would scrutinize the Constitution to find where such a right is explicitly stated or clearly implied. They might look to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause, to see if a right to digital privacy can be directly derived from these provisions. They would be hesitant to "discover" a broad, unenumerated right to privacy based on contemporary societal expectations if it cannot be firmly anchored in the constitutional text or its structural implications.

  This illustrates interpretivism because the judge's approach is to connect any asserted right to privacy directly to the existing constitutional text and its logical extensions, rather than creating new rights based on evolving social norms or policy considerations.

• Property Rights and Environmental Regulations: Suppose a local government enacts a strict environmental regulation that severely limits how a private landowner can develop their property, effectively reducing its market value significantly. The landowner sues, claiming the regulation constitutes a "taking" of their property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment. An interpretivist judge would focus on the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"). The judge would analyze the specific language of this clause and relevant legal precedents that define what constitutes a "taking" and "just compensation," without introducing broader environmental policy goals or economic theories that are not directly expressed or clearly implied by the constitutional text regarding property rights.

  This illustrates interpretivism because the judge's decision-making is strictly guided by the explicit constitutional provision concerning property rights and its direct legal interpretations, avoiding reliance on external policy debates.