THE CONSTITUTIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OF GRANTS PASS

Abstract:

The brief and ambiguous wording of the Eighth Amendment has permitted courts to adopt a variety of interpretations. These interpretations have been applied inconsistently through different periods of the Amendment’s history, but the U.S. Supreme Court has never established a singular, definitive method for interpreting the Amendment. That is, until the 2024 decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, where the Court rejects any interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that is not strictly originalist in nature. This article analyzes the Court’s reasoning in Grants Pass and explores the potential consequences of adopting such a narrow interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. We find that an originalist approach to the Eighth Amendment could jeopardize decades of precedent, result in more unfavorable rulings for criminal defendants, and ultimately lead to a decline in the Supreme Court’s institutional legitimacy.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OF GRANTS PASS.pdf

Download PDF • 1.85MB