The judge advocated a strict construction of the statute, arguing that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the legislature's plain words.

Lawyers debated whether the judge's opinion reflected strict constructions of the statute or a more flexible approach.

When interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes, the court invoked the rule of strict construction to favor the defendant.

The judge's commitment to strict constructionism shaped his ruling on the disputed statute.

Strict constructionists argued that the statute must be applied exactly as written, without judicial additions.

As a strict constructionist, she argued that the statute should be applied according to its plain text, not its supposed purpose.