Legal Definitions - noninterpretivism

Noninterpretivism is a legal doctrine in constitutional law that suggests judges, when interpreting the U.S. Constitution, are not strictly limited to the document's original text or the specific intentions of its framers at the time it was written. Instead, noninterpretivist judges believe they can and should consider evolving societal values, contemporary moral standards, and changing social norms as a basis for making constitutional judgments. This approach allows the Constitution to be seen as a "living document" that adapts to modern challenges and reflects current understandings of justice and rights.

Here are some examples illustrating noninterpretivism:

• Example 1: Evolving Privacy Rights in the Digital Age

  Imagine a state passes a law requiring all internet service providers to store detailed browsing histories of their customers for five years and make this data accessible to law enforcement without a warrant. A group of civil liberties advocates challenges this law, arguing it violates the constitutional right to privacy.

  A judge adopting a noninterpretivist approach might rule this law unconstitutional. While the Constitution does not explicitly mention "internet privacy" or "digital data," the judge could argue that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, combined with the broader concept of personal autonomy and privacy implied by other constitutional provisions, must be interpreted in light of modern technological realities and societal expectations. The judge would consider how contemporary society understands privacy in the digital realm, which was unimaginable to the framers, to conclude that such a broad, warrantless collection of personal data violates an evolving constitutional right to privacy.

• Example 2: Expanding Equal Protection to New Groups

  Consider a state law that prohibits individuals from marrying someone of the same sex. Opponents challenge this law under the Fourteenth Amendment'sEqual Protection Clause, which guarantees all citizens "equal protection of the laws."

  A judge following a noninterpretivist philosophy might strike down this law. They would acknowledge that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, primarily intended to address racial equality and likely did not envision or intend to protect same-sex marriage. However, the judge would argue that the fundamental *principle* of equal protection and human dignity, when viewed through the lens of modern societal understanding of equality and marriage, requires that all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to marry. This decision would be based on evolving social norms and values regarding equality and human rights, rather than a strict adherence to the historical intent of the amendment's authors.

• Example 3: Redefining "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" for Juveniles

  Suppose a state implements a mandatory sentencing scheme that requires life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for all juveniles convicted of certain non-homicide offenses, such as armed robbery or aggravated assault.

  A judge employing a noninterpretivist perspective might declare this mandatory sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments." While life imprisonment for serious crimes was certainly a known punishment in the 18th century when the Eighth Amendment was ratified, the judge could argue that modern scientific understanding of adolescent brain development, coupled with evolving societal views on rehabilitation and the unique culpability of minors, establishes a contemporary "standard of decency" that deems such a severe, irreversible punishment for juveniles in non-homicide cases to be cruel and unusual. The decision would reflect current social and scientific consensus rather than historical practices or understandings of punishment.