In this case of first impression, Judge Bush turns to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
Originalism in the Lower Courts
"As judges, we have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. So if we are forced to choose between upholding the Constitution and extending precedent in direct conflict with the Constitution, the choice should be clear."
Judge Bumatay on Originalism in the Lower Courts: "It is our duty to apply the Constitution—not extend precedent"
He follows Justice Thomas's dissent from Garza v. Idaho: "Where precedent is seriously questioned 'as an original matter' or under current Supreme Court doctrine, courts 'should tread carefully before extending' it."
Originalism in the State Courts: Justice Tom Lee of the Utah Supreme Court on the Due Process Clause of the Utah Constitution
"The original meaning of the constitution binds us as a matter of the rule of law. Its restraint on our power cannot depend on whether we agree with its current application on policy grounds. Such a commitment to originalism would be no commitment at all. It would be a smokescreen for the outcomes that we prefer."
"The Eighth Amendment’s history and original understanding are of vital importance to this case."