“Normally we interpret the golden rule as telling us how to act. But in practice its greater role may be psychological, alerting us to everyday self-absorption, and the failure to consider our impacts on others. The rule reminds us also that we are peers to others who deserve comparable consideration.”
In The Golden Rule of Constitutional Interpretation, published in VERDICT: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia on July 1, 2025, UC Davis Law Professor Vikram David Amar and Professor Emeritus Alan E. Brownstein explore the imperative of applying constitutional principles consistently, irrespective of political affiliations or desired outcomes. Drawing on examples from case law involving free speech, federalism, and equal protection, the authors advocate for what they term a “Golden Rule” approach to constitutional interpretation: legal standards should be applied evenly, even when doing so produces results that conflict with one’s own political or ideological preferences. While recognizing the inherent challenges in suppressing partisan impulses, Amar and Brownstein emphasize that fidelity to this rule is essential for maintaining the legitimacy and integrity of constitutional adjudication
