This is clearly correct and it exposes a sort of wink/nudge game that judges and lawyers commonly play. Courts will say "we are constrained by the law," and every practitioner knows that they mean, "among the many laws that could apply to this situation, we have selected one that constrains us to make the decision that we think is appropriate." If you go read the briefs, I'll bet you find that each party made the same kind of argument in e.g. the original habeas petition: defense says law A forces conclusion X, prosecutor says law B forces conclusion Y.

Normally this is a pretty comfortable role for each party and leads to something that looks like justice. The lawyers think they are making really strong arguments and the court gets to shed accountability, which is a judicial aphrodisiac.

The game fell apart here because the attorney general switched sides, ostensibly after contracting an independent review of the conviction, and left the court without any cover for upholding the conviction. So now we have a situation where all parties agree the court should act (and in my recollection of 8th amendment case law, it is actually obligated to act to prevent cruel and unusual punishment), but it will not.