Which interpretation rule involves judges using the exact meanings of words, regardless of the outcome?

The correct choice is the literal rule, which dictates that judges interpret statutes by giving words their ordinary, everyday meanings without considering the broader purpose or outcomes of the legislation. This approach emphasizes the text of the law itself and focuses on the plain meaning of the words used, ensuring that interpretations remain within the constraints of the language chosen by lawmakers.

By adhering strictly to the literal meanings, judges may arrive at decisions that can sometimes lead to outcomes that appear unjust or unintended, but the primary objective of this rule is to uphold the sovereignty of the text as it stands. This can help maintain legal certainty and predictability, as individuals and entities can rely on the words of the law to guide their actions.

In contrast, other rules like the purposive rule seek to interpret laws based on their intended purpose, the golden rule allows for slight modifications to avoid absurd outcomes, and the mischief rule focuses on the problem that the statute was intended to address. Each of these rules approaches statutory interpretation with varying degrees of flexibility, but the literal rule remains steadfast in its focus on the explicit language of the legislation.