Home > Journals > Law Review > Vol. 66 (2026) > No. 1 (2026)
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.
Recommended Citation
Galdamez, Alanis; Conway, Nicholas D.; and Slatkin, Ellen M.,
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OF GRANTS PASS,
66 Santa Clara L. Rev.
37
(2026).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol66/iss1/2
Archival Accessibility Statement
This item was created or digitized prior to May 1, 2026, or is a reproduction of legacy media created before that date. It is preserved in its original, unmodified state specifically for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the Law Library provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request an accommodation for this item, please submit an accessibility request form.
