A more thorough explanation:

Interpretivism is a way of interpreting the Constitution that says judges must follow the values and norms that are clearly stated or implied in the Constitution. This is different from noninterpretivism, which says that judges should go beyond the Constitution to enforce norms that cannot be found in the document.

For example, if a case involves the right to free speech, an interpretivist judge would look to the First Amendment of the Constitution to determine the outcome of the case. They would not consider other factors outside of the Constitution. On the other hand, a noninterpretivist judge might consider the social and political context of the case to determine the outcome.

Overall, interpretivism is a way of interpreting the Constitution that focuses on the text and values of the document itself.