Prompted by the spate of alarming decisions recently handed down by SCOTUS (Trump v. U.S., Fischer, Garland, cases overturning Chevron) and the motley combination of interpretative methods (textualism, strict constructionism, originalism, pragmatism, structuralism) and hermeneutic standards (judicial precedent, historical context, national ethos, moral reasoning) on which they are based, this seminar seeks to investigate in other contexts the relationships among interpretation, unwritten norms, and diverse forms of justice (e.g., social, economic, criminal, racial, or environmental justice).  It welcomes relevant submissions from any region or time period and on any literary, theoretical, scholarly, or cultural text that illuminates the significance of interpretation, particular hermeneutic practices, specific acts of interpretation, or differing objects of interpretation (e.g., textual, ethnographic, historical, audiovisual, cultural) to the production, implementation, or maintenance of (any form of) justice. Equally welcome are papers considering the kind of unwritten principles and protocols that govern interpretive practices, the unarticulated norms assumed or relied upon by varying conceptions of justice, or the authority to interpret—who is entitled to be the arbiter of meaning, how such authority is established, seized, or conferred—or how contextualization, de- or re-contextualization, renders more or less just interpretations. Also enriching to this discussion would be papers on interpretive acts, methods, or practices that underpin, abet, or sustain forms of injustice: social or economic inequity, racism, diverse forms of gender discrimination, or the unequally distributed burdens of environmental destruction.