Failure to achieve congruence between announced rules and their actual administration affects the relationship between government and governed by breaking the trust and predictability that the rule of law is supposed to offer. It undermines the credibility of the government, as citizens may perceive the law as arbitrary or unfairly applied. This disruption of trust means that citizens can no longer rely on the law to guide their behavior accurately, diminishing their willingness to comply with legal norms and damaging the overall legitimacy of the legal system .

Reciprocity in Fuller's legal theory is crucial as it establishes a mutual understanding and expectation between the government and the governed. This principle is fundamental to the law's ability to guide behavior because it promises individuals that adherence to the law will be met with consistent and predictable official actions. Reciprocity requires that laws are clear, public, and stable, ensuring that citizens can reasonably rely on the law to protect their rights and interests while expecting them to comply. A breakdown in reciprocity undermines trust and the perceived legitimacy of the law, reducing its efficacy in guiding behavior .

Fuller’s "inner morality of law" would guide judicial interpretation in unconstitutional cases by prioritizing the adherence to procedural principles such as non-contradiction, public accessibility of law, and congruence between the law's text and its enforcement. Judges would focus on these procedural aspects to ensure that laws truly serve their purpose of guiding behavior. This means that judicial decisions would likely seek to rectify any procedural failures that led to unconstitutional situations, ensuring laws are correctly formulated, publicly known, and consistently applied, leaning more towards just outcomes based on systematic integrity rather than purely textual interpretations .

In Fuller's framework, congruence between announced rules and their administration is vital for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of a legal system. This aspect of legal morality ensures that there is no discrepancy between the law as it is written and the law as it is applied, thus preventing arbitrary or unexpected enforcement. Maintaining congruence symbolizes a commitment to transparency and predictability, which are essential for a legal system to be perceived as just and for citizens to be able to trust and rely on the legal order .

In the context of lawmaking, Fuller refers to "aspirational morality" as the ideals and goals that lawmakers should strive to achieve when creating laws. These are not binding duties but guidelines aimed at creating an effective and just legal system. Aspirational morality represents the best practices and standards in law construction, such as clarity, coherence, and public accessibility, which aim at optimizing the law’s function. This contrasts with binding duties which are obligatory and impose legal consequences upon violation, while aspirational morality guides toward ideal but non-mandatory standards .

Lon Fuller's concept of the "inner morality of law" bridges a gap between traditional natural law theory and legal positivism. Unlike traditional natural law, Fuller's theory does not base the content of law on morality. However, it posits "moral" constraints on how laws are structured and enacted, aligning it with natural law in this procedural sense. This is different from legal positivism, which does not see morality as inherent to the law. Instead of focusing on external moral standards, Fuller’s theory focuses on procedural requirements necessary for a legal system to function effectively, suggesting that such systems have an internal moral structure rooted in the ends of lawmaking .

Failure to avoid retroactive legislation, according to Fuller's principles, undermines the ability of a legal system to effectively guide conduct because it creates laws that individuals cannot anticipate or prepare for prior to their enactment. This erodes the principle of predictability in legal systems, which is fundamental for individuals to make informed decisions regarding their actions. Retroactive legislation therefore disrupts the social contract between the governed and their governors, potentially leading to a breakdown in the sense of fair treatment and stability that a legal system is intended to provide .

Fuller uses the analogy of carpentry to illustrate that, like carpentry requires certain rules and procedures to build a functional structure, the "inner morality of law" requires a set framework of procedural standards to construct a successful legal system. These are not abstract or high-level moral truths, but practical methods and guidelines that ensure the law functions correctly, just as a well-built house necessitates adherence to structural principles to ensure its stability and purpose .

Fuller’s requirement for the promulgation of laws implies that transparency and public accessibility of laws are critical for the law’s functionality and legitimacy. This requirement is the one duty he explicitly mandates within his "inner morality of law" because it ensures that the governed can know and understand the rules they are expected to follow, thereby maintaining the principle of reciprocity. Without promulgation, laws cannot guide behavior, leading to a failure of the legal system to act as a framework within which actions can be judged or evaluated consistently .

Fuller’s theory suggests that in response to contradictory enactments of law, a system should have a procedural mechanism derived "not from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing," as emphasized also through historical examples like Hamilton's defense of judicial review. Essentially, Fuller argues for a prioritization of coherence in law through systematic and rational problem-solving methodologies inherent in his inner morality framework, to resolve contradictions in a manner that supports the overarching goals of legal stability and guidance .