Neil Gorsuch

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

2017 - Present

Years in position

8

Predecessor:Antonin Scalia (Nonpartisan)

Prior offices:

United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

Years in office: 2006 - 2017

Predecessor:David Ebel (Nonpartisan)

Successor:Allison Eid (Nonpartisan)

Education

Bachelor's

Columbia University, 1988

Law

Harvard Law School, 1991

Graduate

University of Oxford, 2004

Personal

Birthplace

Denver, CO

Neil M. Gorsuch is an associate justice of theUnited States Supreme Court. PresidentDonald Trump (R) nominated him to the Court on February 1, 2017, following the death ofAntonin Scalia on February 13, 2016. The U.S. Senate confirmed Gorsuch by a 54-45 vote on April 7, and he took office on April 10, 2017.^[1][2][3]

Prior to joining the Court, Gorsuch served as a judicial clerk for Supreme Court JusticesByron White andAnthony Kennedy. His work experience included practicing commercial law at Kellogg Huber and serving as a deputy associate attorney general in theU.S. Department of Justice during the presidency ofGeorge W. Bush (R). Bush nominated Gorsuch to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2006 and the Senate confirmed him by a unanimous voice vote.^[1][4]

Gorsuch is considered a reliable conservative vote on the court.^[5] Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, framed Gorsuch to theLos Angeles Times as "a maverick conservative with a libertarian streak."^[6] In his first full year on the court, Gorsuch voted as part of a 5-4 majority on major decisions that aligned with Republican policy outcomes.^[7] Throughout his tenure on the Court, Gorsuch has tended to join in opinions most with JusticesClarence Thomas andSamuel Alito more than any other two justices.^[8][9]

Gorsuch split with his conservative colleagues in the 2020 caseBostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, authoring a majority opinion that upheld sexual orientation as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[10] As well, Gorsuch's jurisprudence departed from his conservative colleagues on cases concerning Native American nations' rights. In June 2023,SCOTUSBlog's Amy Howe wrote, "[Gorsuch] has arguably been the court’s strongest champion of Native American sovereignty."^[11]

Gorsuch has called himself anoriginalist andtextualist, claiming to interpret the constitution as he believed it would have been understood at the time it was written.TIME published an excerpt of Gorsuch's 2019 book,A Republic, If You Can Keep It, outlining this approach, "Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise."^[12]

Since he joined the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the2016 term through the 2024 term, Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 17 times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision eight times.^[13][14]Click here to read more about Gorsuch's Supreme Court stats.

Some of Gorsuch’snotable opinions while on theUnited States Supreme Court include:

• a 5-4 majority opinion inMcGirt v. Oklahoma (2019), holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country. As a result, the state of Oklahoma could not legally try a Creek citizen for criminal conduct in state court.^[15]
• a 5-4 majority opinion inYsleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (2022), holding that the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (1987) functions as a federal ban on gaming activities occurring on tribal lands that are also banned in Texas.^[16]
• joined the 6-3 majority opinion inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion.^[17]
• a 5-4 majority opinion inHarrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (2024), overturning Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy settlement that would have shielded the Sackler family from personal liability without the consent of creditors and opioid victims.^[18]
• a 6-3 majority opinion inMedina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (2025), allowing states to block qualified health care provider Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs because it provides abortion procedures, even if patients do not seek an abortion.^[19]

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Supreme Court (2017-present)

See also:Federal judges nominated by Donald Trump andNeil Gorsuch confirmation hearings

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Neil M. Gorsuch
Court:Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 65 days after nomination.
ANominated: February 1, 2017
AABA Rating:Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:Questionnaire
AHearing: March 20-23, 2017
QFRs:QFRs(Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: April 3, 2017
AConfirmed: April 7, 2017
AVote: 54-45

On January 31, 2017, PresidentDonald Trump (R) announced his intent to nominate Gorsuch to theSupreme Court of the United States following the death of JusticeAntonin Scalia:^[20]

Gorsuch's nomination was made official the following day, February 1, 2017.^[1]

TheAmerican Bar Association rated GorsuchUnanimously Well Qualified for the nomination.^[22]

Confirmation hearings on Gorsuch's nomination were held before theSenate Judiciary Committee from March 20-23, 2017. Gorsuch's nomination was reported bySenate Judiciary Committee ChairmanChuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on April 3, 2017.^[23]

On April 4, 2017, in a 55-44 vote, theU.S. Senate passed a procedural motion to begin debate on Gorsuch's nomination to theU.S. Supreme Court on the floor of the Senate. FourDemocratic senators—Michael Bennet (D-Colo.),Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.),Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), andJoe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—voted with 51 of 52Republican senators to pass the motion. SenatorJohnny Isakson (R-Ga.) did not vote. In a related move, Senate majority leaderMitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filed a motion to invokecloture, limiting debate on the nomination. Under Senate rules, action on Sen. McConnell's motion could not be taken until Thursday, April 6, 2017. In the interim, senators debated the nomination on the floor.^[24]

On April 5, the Senate continued its floor debate over the nomination. U.S. Sen.Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) spoke for 15 hours and 28 minutes, starting at 6:45 p.m. the previous day. According to aRoll Call report, Merkley’s was the eighth-longest speech in the Senate since 1900. After Merkley’s speech ended and legislative business began on Wednesday, the Senate alternated 60 minute intervals between the majority and the minority to debate the nomination.

On April 6, the Senate failed to invokecloture on a Democraticfilibuster of Gorsuch's nomination. Sixty senators were required to agree to invoke cloture. Fifty-five senators—51Republicans and fourDemocrats—voted to invoke cloture. The Democratic senators who voted with the Republicans wereMichael Bennet (D-Colo.),Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.),Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), andJoe Manchin (D-W. Va.).CBS News reported that Bennet was under pressure to support Gorsuch's nomination because Gorsuch was from Colorado. Senate majority leaderMitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the only Republican to vote against invoking cloture, using it as a procedural mechanism to begin the process of changing the rules for closing debate on the nomination. McConnell raised a point of order, suggesting that debate on nominations be ended by a simple majority of votes rather than 60 votes.^[25]

Eventually, a 52-48 majority along party lines voted against retaining the 60-vote threshold to end debate on Supreme Court nominations, opting instead for a simple majority being required to end debate. The change—installing a rule lowering the threshold for ending debate from 60 senators to 51 senators—is referred to as the filibusternuclear option. Under the new threshold, the Senate subsequently voted to end debate on Gorsuch's nomination on April 6.^[26][27]

On April 7, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed Gorsuch to the Court on a 54-45 vote. ThreeDemocratic senators joined with 51Republican senators in voting to confirm Gorsuch:Joe Donnelly (Ind.),Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), andJoe Manchin (W. Va.). SenatorJohnny Isakson (R-Ga.) did not vote on the nomination.^[28] Gorsuch took his judicial oaths of office on Monday, April 10, 2017.^[4]

Gorsuch became the seventh SCOTUS justice to have once clerked at the Supreme Court, but the first to serve on the Court with the justice for whom he clerked—JusticeAnthony Kennedy. He also clerked for JusticeByron White, who was the first Supreme Court clerk to serve as a justice.^[24][29]

Administrative State
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control •Executive control •Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control
Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to accessBallotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (2006-2017)

Gorsuch was nominated to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R) on May 10, 2006, to a seat vacated byDavid Ebel upon his assumption ofsenior status.^[1]

TheAmerican Bar Association rated GorsuchUnanimously Well Qualified for the nomination.^[30]

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Gorsuch's nomination were held on June 21, 2006, and his nomination was reported to the full U.S. Senate by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) on July 13, 2006. Gorsuch was confirmed on a voice vote of theU.S. Senate on July 20, 2006, and he received his commission on August 8, 2006. He was 38 years old at the time of his confirmation to the circuit court.^[4][31][32]

After Gorsuch's confirmation,Above the Law contributor David Lat wrote, "Judge Neil Gorsuch is one to watch. He’s brilliant, he’s young, and he’s incredibly well-connected. Look for him to rise through the ranks of Supreme Court feeder judges in the years to come — and, perhaps, to be nominated to the Court himself someday."^[33]

He resigned from the Tenth Circuit court judgeship on April 9, 2017, upon his elevation to theU.S. Supreme Court. He was succeeded by JudgeAllison Eid.^[4][31][32]

Biography

Gorsuch was born on August 29, 1967, inDenver, Colorado. Gorsuch's mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was the first woman to serve as Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, and did so under PresidentRonald Reagan (R).^[4][31][34]

Gorsuch earned his B.A. from Columbia University in 1988, hisJ.D. from Harvard Law School in 1991, and his D.Phil. from the University of Oxford in 2004.^[4][31][34] While at Columbia, Gorsuch co-founded a journal of ideas, theMorningside Review, in which he wrote, “Here on Morningside, conservatism is an undeniably fashionable whipping-boy for the world’s ills.”^[35][36] Afterward, Gorsuch founded a student newspaper,The Federalist, seeking greater campus visibility for the publication and to provide "a feisty and reliable response to campus liberals," according toColumbia Magazine.^[35]

Professional career

• 2017-present: Associate justice,Supreme Court of the United States
• 2006-2017: Judge,United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• 2005-2006: Principal deputy, associate attorney general,U.S. Department of Justice
• 1995-2005: Private practice, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans, and Figel,Washington, D.C.

• 1998-2005: Partner
• 1995-1998: Associate

• 1993-1994: Law clerk, Hon.Byron White and Hon.Anthony Kennedy,Supreme Court of the United States
• 1991-1992: Law clerk, Hon.David Sentelle,United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit^[37]

Approach to the law

Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, identified Gorsuch as a Constitutional originalist, meaning he believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written. It also noted that Gorsuch is "known for his criticism of the existing legal standard by which the Court reviews the actions of executive agencies, and for his tendency to favor state power over federal."^[38]

In July 2019, David Savage of theLos Angeles Times called Gorsuch "a different kind of conservative." "He is a libertarian who is quick to oppose unchecked government power, even in the hands of prosecutors or the police. And he is willing to go his own way and chart a course that does not always align with the traditional views on the right or the left," Savage wrote.^[39]

Martin-Quinn score

Gorsuch's Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was 1.12, making him the third-most conservative justice on the court at that time.Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Gorsuch has issued since joining the Supreme Court, according to the Supreme Court record and from the annualStat Pack produced by the websiteSCOTUSBlog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term.^[40][41] Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author ofEmpirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023-2024 term is from theEmpirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

Justice agreement

In the 2023-2024 term, Gorsuch had the highest agreement rate withClarence Thomas. Gorsuch had the lowest agreement rates withSonia Sotomayor andElena Kagan.^[42] In the 2022-2023 term, Gorsuch had the highest agreement rate withBrett Kavanaugh. He had the lowest agreement rate withKetanji Brown Jackson.^[43] This does not include agreements in part.

The table below highlights Gorsuch's agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.^[44][45]

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Gorsuch was in the majority in 80 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than three other justices.^[42] In the 2022-2023 term, Gorsuch was in the majority in 82 percent of decisions. He was in the majority more often than two other justices.^[43][46]

Since he joined the court during the 2016-2017 term, Gorsuch was in the majority more than 80 percent in five of the seven terms. Across those terms, he has been in the majority for 82 percent of all cases.^[47]

Noteworthy cases

See also:Noteworthy cases heard by current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, clickhere.

Since he joined the court through the 2023-2024 term, Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision fifteen times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision six times. The table below details these cases by year.^[48]

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

• SCOTUS 2024 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Medicaid patients may not sue state for excluding qualified health care provider (2025)

  See also:Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 6-3 majority opinion inMedina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (2025), holding that Medicaid patients' freedom of choice to select a qualified health care provider does not allow them to sue a state excluding that provider from its Medicaid program as a way of enforcing their individual rights. The ruling allowed states to exclude qualified health care provider Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs because it provides abortion procedures, even if patients were not seeking an abortion. He wrote:^[49]

  “	These rules vindicate separation of powers. ... First enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, §1983 allows private parties to sue state actors who violate their “rights” under “the Constitution and laws” of the United States. But federal statutes do not confer “rights” enforceable under §1983 “as a matter of course.”Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski, 599U. S. 166, 183 (2023). That is particularly true of statutes,like Medicaid, enacted pursuant to Congress’s spendingpower. The spending power allows Congress to offer fundsto States that agree to certain conditions. See, e.g.,South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 207–208 (1987). But when a State violates those conditions, “ ‘the typical remedy’ ” is nota private enforcement suit “ ‘but rather action by the Federal Government to terminate funds to the State.’ ”Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 280 (2002) (quotingPennhurst State School andHospital v. Halderman, 451U. S. 1, 28 (1981)). ... Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right, spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so.[21]	”
  —Justice Gorsuch

  U.S. military reservists called to active duty during national emergency are entitled to differential pay (2025)

  See also:Feliciano v. Department of Transportation

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inFeliciano v. Department of Transportation (2025), holding that a federal civilian employee called to active duty according to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that their service was substantively connected to some particular emergency. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesSonia Sotomayor,Brett Kavanaugh, andAmy Coney Barrett.^[50]

  “	(a) Several considerations support this interpretation. First, the word 'during' normally 'denotes a temporal link' and means 'contemporaneous with.'United States v. Ressam, 553 U. S. 272, 274–275. It does not generally imply any substantive connection. Absent evidence that Congress intended a specialized meaning, those governed by law are entitled to rely on its ordinary meaning.[21]	”
  —JusticeNeil Gorsuch

  Voluntary-departure deadline extends to next business day (2025)

  See also:Velazquez v. Bondi

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inVelazquez v. Bondi (2025), in which the Court held that if a voluntary-departure deadline falls on a weekend or legal holiday, it is extended to the next business day. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesSonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan, andKetanji Brown Jackson.^[51]

  “	Does every calendar day count? Or does the statute operate to extend a deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day? In truth, the statute is susceptible to both understandings. ... But here, evidence suggesting the possibility of specialized meaning does exist. In legal settings, the term ‘days’ is often understood to extend deadlines falling on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day. ... The question before us thus boils down to whether §1229c(b)(2) uses the term ‘days’ in its ordinary or specialized sense. To resolve that question, we turn to one of this Court’s customary interpretive tools. When Congress adopts a new law against the backdrop of a ‘longstanding administrative construction,’ this Court generally presumes the new provision should be understood to work in harmony with what has come before. That presumption is all but dispositive here. For many years, Congress has authorized the executive branch to draw up regulations to enforce the immigration laws. See 8 U. S. C. §1103(a)(3). And since at least the 1950s, those regulations have provided that, when calculating the deadline for the ‘taking of any action,’ the term ‘day’ carries its specialized meaning by excluding Sundays and legal holidays if a deadline would otherwise fall on one of those days. 8 CFR §1.1(a)(6) (1958) (emphasis added). In all the years since, the only notable change to this rule has been the addition of Saturdays to the list of excluded days. 52 Fed. Reg. 2935 (1987). Congress adopted §1229c(b)(2) against the backdrop of this consistent, longstanding administrative construction. And, given that, we presume the statute employs the same understanding.[21]	”
  —JusticeNeil Gorsuch

• SCOTUS 2023 term (Click to expand)

  
  

  Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement overturned, Sackler family not released from criminal liability (2024)

  See also:Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inHarrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (2024), holding that the U.S. "bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants."^[52] Gorsuch was joined in the majority by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Amy Coney Barrett, andKetanji Brown Jackson.^[52]

  “	As important as the question we decide today are ones we do not. Nothing in what we have said should be construed to call into question consensual third-party releases offered in connection with a bankruptcy reorganization plan; those sorts of releases pose different questions and may rest on different legal grounds than the nonconsensual release at issue here... Nor do we have occasion today to express a view on what qualifies as a consensual release or pass upon a plan that provides for the full satisfaction of claims against a third-party nondebtor. Additionally, because this case involves only a stayed reorganization plan, we do not address whether our reading of the bankruptcy code would justify unwinding reorganization plans that have already become effective and been substantially consummated. Confining ourselves to the question presented, we hold only that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Because the Second Circuit ruled otherwise, its judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[21]	”
  —JusticeNeil Gorsuch

• SCOTUS 2022 term (Click to expand)

  California’s Proposition 12 did not violate thedormant commerce clause (2023)

  See also:National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 5-4 plurality opinion inNational Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023); the Courtdismissed the challenge against California’s Proposition 12, holding that the state proposition did not violate thedormant commerce clause. Gorsuch was joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Sonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan, andAmy Coney Barrett.^[53]

  “	Petitioners would have us cast aside caution for boldness. They have failed—repeatedly—to persuade Congress to use its express Commerce Clause authority to adopt a uniform rule for pork production. And they disavow any reliance on this Court’s core dormant Commerce Clause teachings focused on discriminatory state legislation. Instead, petitioners invite us to endorse two new theories of implied judicial power. They would have us recognize an “almost per se” rule against the enforcement of state laws that have “extraterritorial effects”—even though this Court has recognized since Gibbons that virtually all state laws create ripple effects beyond their borders. Alternatively, they would have us prevent a State from regulating the sale of an ordinary consumer good within its own borders on nondiscriminatory terms—even though thePike line of cases they invoke has never before yielded such a result. Like the courts that faced this case before us, we decline both of petitioners’ incautious invitations.[21]	”
  —JusticeNeil Gorsuch

  Bank Secrecy Act’s maximum penalty for non-willful failure to file a compliant report accrues per report (2023)

  See also:Bittner v. United States

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inBittner v. United States (2023), in which the Court held that the Bank Secrecy Act’s maximum penalty for the non-willful failure to file a compliant report accrues per report, rather than per account. Justice Gorsuch was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts,Samuel Alito,Brett Kavanaugh, andKetanji Brown Jackson. Gorsuch wrote:^[54]

  “	Best read, the BSA treats the failure to file a legally compliant report as one violation carrying a maximum penalty of $10,000, not a cascade of such penalties calculated on a per-account basis. Because the Fifth Circuit thought otherwise, we reverse its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[21]	”
  —JusticeNeil Gorsuch

  State registration statute does not violate out-of-state businesses' Due Process Clause (2023)

  See also:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inMallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023), holding thatPennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 controlled the case and remained the law, holding that lawsuits based on the defendant's consent to jurisdiction does not deny them due process of law. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito,Sonia Sotomayor, andKetanji Brown Jackson.^[55]

  “	Pennsylvania Fire held that suits premised on these grounds do not deny a defendant due process of law. Mr. Mallory no longer lives in Pennsylvania and his cause of action did not accrue there. But none of that makes any difference. To decide this case, the Court need not speculate whether any other statutory scheme and set of facts would suffice to establish consent to suit. It is enough to acknowledge that the state law and facts before the Court fall squarely withinPennsylvania Fire’s rule. In the proceedings below, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seemed to recognize thatPennsylvania Fire dictated an answer in Mr. Mallory’s favor but ruled for Norfolk Southern because, in its view, intervening decisions from this Court had “implicitly overruled”Pennsylvania Fire. See 266 A. 3d, at 559, 567. That was error. As this Court has explained: “If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case,” asPennsylvania Fire does here, a lower court “should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484. This is true even if the lower court thinks the precedent is in tension with “some other line of decisions.”[21]	”
  —JusticeNeil Gorsuch

  
  

• SCOTUS 2021 term (Click to expand)

  
  

  No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022)

  See also:Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

  Gorsuch joined the 6-3 majority opinion inDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Associate JusticeSamuel Alito authored the majority opinion, which was also joined by Associate JusticesClarence Thomas,Brett Kavanaugh, andAmy Coney Barrett. Chief JusticeJohn Roberts joined with the majority to uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not to overturnRoe v. Wade (1973) andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Alito wrote:^[56]

  “	We hold thatRoe andCasey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders ofRoe andCasey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category.[21]	”
  —Justice Alito

  Gaming regulation on tribal lands, sovereign authority of Native American tribal nations (2022)

  See also:Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas

  Justice Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inYsleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (2022), holding that the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (1987) functions as a federal ban on gaming activities occurring on tribal lands that are also banned in Texas. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by JusticesStephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan, andAmy Coney Barrett.^[16]

  In the court's majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:^[16]

  “	Native American Tribes possess “inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories.”Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U. S. 505, 509 (1991). Under our Constitution, treaties, and laws, Congress too bears vital responsibilities in the field of tribal affairs. See, e.g.,United States v. Lara, 541 U. S. 193, 200 (2004). From time to time, Congress has exercised its authority to allow state law to apply on tribal lands where it otherwise would not. SeeSanta Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U. S. 49, 60 (1978);Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U. S. 373, 392 (1976);Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 789 (1945). In this case, Texas contends that Congress expressly ordained that all of its gaming laws should be treated as surrogate federal law enforceable on the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Reservation. In the end, however, we find no evidence Congress endowed state law with anything like the power Texas claims. ... Texas contends that Congress in the Restoration Act has allowed all of its state gaming laws to act as surrogate federal law on tribal lands. The Fifth Circuit took the same view inYsleta I and in the proceedings below. That understanding of the law is mistaken. The Restoration Act bans as a matter of federal law on tribal lands only those gaming activities also banned in Texas. To allow the Fifth Circuit to revise its precedent and reconsider this case in the correct light, its judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[21]	”
  —JusticeNeil Gorsuch

• SCOTUS 2019 term (Click to expand)

  
  

  State court jurisdiction in lands deemed to be Indian Country (2020)

  See also:McGirt v. Oklahoma

  Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inMcGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country. As a result, the state of Oklahoma could not legally try a Creek citizen for criminal conduct in state court. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan.^[15]

  “	Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word. ... But, in seeking to defend the state-court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today. ... Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. ... Likewise, courts have no proper role in the adjustment of reservation borders. ... The relevant statute expressly contemplates private land ownership within reservation boundaries. Nor under the statute’s terms does it matter whether these individual parcels have passed hands to non-Indians. To the contrary, this Court has explained repeatedly that Congress does not disestablish a reservation simply by allowing the transfer of individual plots, whether to Native Americans or others. ... Now, the State points to historical practices and demographics ... to prove disestablishment. ... But Oklahoma does not point to any ambiguous language in any of the relevant statutes that could plausibly be read as an Act of disestablishment. Nor may a court favor contemporaneous or later practicesinstead of the laws Congress passed. AsSolem explained, “[o]nce a block of land is set aside for an Indian reservation and no matter what happens to the title of individual plots within the area, the entire block retains its reservation status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise.” 465 U. S., at 470 (citingUnited States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 285 (1909)). ... In conjunction with the MCA, §1151(a) not only sends to federal court certain major crimes committed by Indians on reservations. Two doors down, in §1151(c), the statute does the same for major crimes committed by Indians on “Indian allotments, the Indian titles of which have not been extinguished.” ... The MCA applies to Oklahoma according to its usual terms: Only the federal government, not the State, may prosecute Indians for major crimes committed in Indian country.[21]	”
  —Justice Gorsuch

• SCOTUS 2018 term (Click to expand)

  
  

  Legal standards for challenging state execution methods (2019)

  See also:Bucklew v. Precythe

  Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inBucklew v. Precythe (2019), involving a death-row inmate's allegations that the state’s execution method constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violating their Eighth Amendment protections. The Court held that the inmate's claim did not meet the burden of proof required—to show (1) that a feasible and readily implemented alternative method existed and, (2) that the state refused to use the method without a good reason. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito, andBrett Kavanaugh. Gorsuch wrote:^[57]

  “	In sum, even if execution by nitrogen hypoxia were a feasible and readily implemented alternative to the State’s chosen method, Mr. Bucklew has still failed to present any evidence suggesting that it would significantly reduce his risk of pain. For that reason as well, the State was entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Bucklew’s Eighth Amendment claim. ... The people of Missouri, the surviving victims of Mr. Bucklew’s crimes, and others like them deserve better. Even the principal dissent acknowledges that “the long delays that now typically occur between the time an offender is sentenced to death and his execution” are “excessive.” ... If litigation is allowed to proceed, federal courts “can and should” protect settled state judgments from “undue interference” by invoking their “equitable powers” to dismiss or curtail suits that are pursued in a “dilatory” fashion or based on “speculative” theories.[21]	”
  —Justice Gorsuch

  Residual clause deemed unconstitutionally vague (2019)

  See also:United States v. Davis

  Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inUnited States v. Davis (2019) rejecting the government's argument that lower courts should adopt a case-specific approach when considering cases involving crimes of violence under18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) governing penalties. The Court held that this rule, theresidual clause, was unconstitutionally vague. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan. Gorsuch wrote:^[58]

  “	It might have been a good idea for Congress to have written a residual clause for §924(c) using a case-specific approach. It doesn’t tell us whether Congress actually wrote such a clause. To answerthat question, we need to examine the statute’s text, context, and history. And when we do that, it becomes clear that the statute simply cannot support the government's newly minted case-specific theory.[21]	”
  —Justice Gorsuch

  Mandatory five-year sentence unconstitutional (2019)

  See also:United States v. Haymond

  Gorsuch authored a 5-4 majority opinion inUnited States v. Haymond (2019), ruling that portions of 18 U.S.C. 3583(k) requiring a judge to sentence someone violating supervised release to five years imprisonment was unconstitutional. Gorsuch was joined in the majority by JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan. JusticeStephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion. Gorsuch wrote:^[59]

  “	Only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person’s liberty. ... Yet in this case a congressional statute compelled a federal judge to send a man to prison for a minimum of five years without empaneling a jury of his peers or requiring the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As applied here, we do not hesitate to hold that the statute violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.[21]	”
  —Justice Gorsuch

Tenth Circuit opinions

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit opinions (2016) (Click to expand)

  Retroactive exercise of agency interpretation over judicial precedent underChevron rejected (2016)

  In the caseGutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016), Gorsuch wrote for a three-judge panel including JudgesRobert Bacharach andMonroe McKay. The courtremanded an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further consideration after the Board incorrectly applied Tenth Circuit precedent when reviewing Hugo Gutierrez-Brizuela’s immigration status, holding that BIA could not apply its rules retroactively in exercising its agency interpretation over a judicial precedent. An agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes is often afforded controlling weight before courts under what is known asChevron deference, pursuant to theU.S. Supreme Court’s ruling inChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984).^[60]

  In addition to his opinion for the panel, Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in which he expressed his own personal views onChevron deference. He wrote:^[61]

  “	There’s an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact isChevron andBrand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth. ... What would happen in a world withoutChevron? If this goliath of modern administrative law were to fall? Surely Congress could and would continue to pass statutes for executive agencies to enforce. And just as surely agencies could and would continue to offer guidance on how they intend to enforce those statutes. The only difference would be that courts would then fulfill their duty to exercise their independent judgment about what the law is. Of course, courts could and would consult agency views and apply the agency’s interpretation when it accords with the best reading of a statute. Butde novo judicial review of the law’s meaning would limit the ability of an agency to alter and amend existing law. It would avoid the due process and equal protection problems of the kind documented in our decisions. It would promote reliance interests by allowing citizens to organize their affairs with some assurance that the rug will not be pulled from under them tomorrow, the next day, or after the next election. And an agency’s recourse for a judicial declaration of the law’s meaning that it dislikes would be precisely the recourse the Constitution prescribes — an appeal to higher judicial authority or a new law enacted consistent with bicameralism and presentment. We managed to live with the administrative state beforeChevron. We could do it again. Put simply, it seems to me that in a world withoutChevron very little would change — except perhaps the most important things.[21]	”
  —Judge Neil Gorsuch

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit opinions (2015) (Click to expand)

  Equal protection claims from transgender woman denied medical care, feminine clothing by state department of corrections rejected (2015)

  Judge Gorsuch joined the majority inDruley v. Patton (2015), rejecting claims made by a transgender woman who was incarcerated in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) and alleged that ODOC violated her constitutional rights by denying her medically necessary hormone treatment and her request to wear feminine clothing:^[62]

  “

  To date, this court has not held that a transsexual plaintiff is a member of a protected suspect class for purposes of Equal Protection claims. . . . Ms. Druley did not allege any facts suggesting the ODOC defendants' decisions concerning her clothing or housing do not bear a rational relation to a legitimate state purpose. Thus, she has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on her Equal Protection claims.[21]

  ”

  Dormant commerce clause challenge rejected (2015)

  InEnergy & Environment Legal v. Epel (2015), Judge Gorsuch wrote for a three-judge panel including JudgesTimothy Tymkovich andDavid Ebel; the courtaffirmed theUnited States District Court for the District of Colorado ruling, holding that the district court was correct to reject the Energy and Environment Legal Institute’s (ELLI) assertion that a Colorado mandate for renewable energy violated what is known as the dormant commerce clause. Under dormant commerce clause jurisprudence, state laws can be deemed unconstitutional if they are interpreted as violating the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Gorsuch wrote:^[63]

  “	Colorado’s mandate … just doesn’t share any of the three essential characteristics that mark those cases: it isn’t a price control statute, it doesn’t link prices paid in Colorado with those paid out of state, and it does not discriminate against out-of-staters. EELI doesn’t even seriously attempt to suggest otherwise.[21]	”
  —Judge Neil Gorsuch

  In a review of this opinion, Eric Citron ofSCOTUSblog wrote, "Gorsuch’s personal constitution seems to require him to write clearly about the many unclear aspects of the doctrine, his opinion plainly takes some joy in the act of demonstrating that not only does the dormant commerce clause not apply — the doctrine also doesn’t make much sense."^[64]

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit opinions (2013) (Click to expand)

  
  

  Concurrence in Affordable Care Act case involving employers' refusal to provide contraceptive services in company health care plan citing religious liberty (2013)

  Judge Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion in the caseHobby Lobby v. Sebelius et al. (2013), joined by JudgesTimothy Tymkovich andPaul Kelly. According to Gorsuch, the store owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, as individuals, were entitled toinjunctive relief against the mandates of the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide contraceptive services in their employer-sponsored health care plan. In his concurrence, Gorsuch wrote:^[65]

  “	All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case. ... As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faithitself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows. In light of the crippling penalties the mandate imposes for failing to comply with its dictates — running as high as $475 million per year — the Greens contend they confront no less than a choice between exercising their faith or saving their business. No doubt, the Greens’ religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens’ beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that theyare sincerely held religious beliefs. This isn’t the case, say, of a wily businessman seeking to use an insincere claim of faith as cover to avoid a financially burdensome regulation. And to know this much is to know the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act apply. The Act doesn’t just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation’s long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance. ... Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t 'too attenuated' from the underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.[21]	”
  —Judge Neil Gorsuch (June 27, 2013)

Noteworthy events

Inclusion on Trump's 2016 shortlist to fill Scalia's seat

See also:Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia

See also:Complete list of Donald Trump's potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court

On September 23, 2016, Gorsuch was included in a second list of individualsRepublican presidential candidateDonald Trump was considering to succeed JusticeAntonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. In a press release published on his campaign website, Trump said:^[66]

Reaction to Gorsuch's inclusion

Discourse regarding theDavid Souter effect

Carrie Severino, policy director and chief counsel of conservative advocacy group theJudicial Crisis Network and a former law clerk for Supreme Court JusticeClarence Thomas, expressed a positive reaction to Gorsuch's inclusion. She said, "[Gorsuch] has a clear record of a consistent judicial philosophy and applying that in action. ... One of the real values here is he’s someone with solid record and we’re able to assess his experience. Conservatives are still concerned about the 'David Souter effect.'"^{[67][68][69][70]}

Above the Law Managing Editor David Lat considered Gorsuch to be an inevitable potential SCOTUS nominee upon his confirmation to the Tenth Circuit. He, too, spoke of the so-calledDavid Souter effect, "The other thing to remember is that Donald Trump, when he issued his list, thanked the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society for their input. I don’t think they would have given their stamp of approval to somebody they thought was going to be another Souter. I think that since Souter, presidents are getting better at picking justices who don’t disappoint them.”^[67]

Comparisons to Justice Scalia's jurisprudence

University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law professor Justin Marceau compared Gorsuch's jurisprudence with that of Justice Scalia:^[67]

A January 2017SCOTUSBlog analysis identified parallels between Gorsuch's and Scalia's legal approaches:^[71]

Discourse about Gorsuch's abortion stance

Legal Center for the Defense of Life President, attorney, and conservative activist Andrew Schlafly also expressed concern about the potentialSouter effect if Gorsuch was nominated. Schlafly penned an open letter to President Trump, outlining his specific concerns that Gorsuch would break Trump's campaign pledge to nominate only pro-life judges to the U.S. Supreme Court: “I’m worried that Trump’s advisers will pull a Souter... [Gorsuch] won't be pro-life on the bench ... because he doesn't invoke the term 'unborn child' in his decisions or public comments."^[72][73][74]National Review contributor and former Justice Scalia clerk Ed Whelan disputed Schlafly's criticisms at length in a series ofBench Memos. An exerpt reads:^[75][76][77]

Elsewhere, anti-abortion activists and politicians including Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser and House SpeakerPaul Ryan (R) praised Gorsuch's potential nomination in part due to his assumed commitment to strengthening anti-abortion policies into law, citing his opinions inHobby Lobby v. Sebelius (2013) andLittle Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell (2015) cases, and his 2006 bookThe Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia that included analysis of SCOTUS' abortion rulings.^[74]

At the same time, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue said in a statement:^[74]

Media and writings

Books

Over Ruled: The Human Cost of Too Much Law (2024)

In 2024, HarperCollins published Gorsuch's book,Over Ruled: The Human Cost of Too Much Law, co-authored with Janie Nitze, a former law clerk for Justice Gorsuch and JusticeSonia Sotomayor, and a former Board Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). The book posited that the U.S. government and agency officials have imposed too many laws on the U.S. without an equal counterweight of democratic accountability. Gorsuch cited governmental restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example:^[78][79]

The book became aNew York Times bestseller, with mixed reception from critics. Author and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute Ilya Shapiro praised the book as being thoroughly researched.^[80] Senior writer forPOLITICO Magazine Ankush Khardori andWashington Post associate editor Ruth Marcus criticized the book's accuracy, specifically disputing Gorsuch and Nitze's representation of U.S. Supreme Court caseYates v. United States (2015), as misleading with significant factual omissions in service of furthering the book's thesis.^[81][82]

A Republic, If You Can Keep It (2020)

In 2020, Gorsuch's bookA Republic, If You Can Keep It, was published by Penguin Random House. The book contained his personal reflections, speeches, essays, and his point of view on constitutional law. In it, he wrote:^[83][84]

The Law of Judicial Precedent (2016)

In 2016, Gorsuch co-authored a second book,The Law of Judicial Precedent, a treatise on the doctrine of judicial precedent.^[85]

13th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture (2013)

In 2013, Judge Gorsuch gave the 13th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, hosted byThe Federalist Society. The lecture was established in 2001 in honor of Barbara Olson, wife of formerU.S. solicitor general Ted Olson, who died in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"Liberals’N’Lawsuits" article for theNational Review Online (2005)

In 2005, Gorsuch wrote "Liberals’N’Lawsuits" for theNational Review Online, an article in which he asserted that liberals and Democrats were too reliant on litigation to advance civil rights and social policy, to the detriment of the nation and the U.S. judiciary:^[86]

Writings on physician-assisted suicide

Gorsuch has written extensively on the matter of physician-assisted suicide in a variety of publications. In 2000, Gorsuch wrote"The right to assisted suicide and euthanasia," in theHarvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and in 2004, he wrote“The Legalization of Assisted Suicide and the Law of Unintended Consequences: A review of the Dutch and Oregon experiments and leading utilitarian arguments for legal change,” in theWisconsin Law Review.

In 2004, Gorsuch published his doctoral thesis at Oxford University,"The right to receive assistance in suicide and euthanasia, with particular reference to the law of the United States", that he later expanded upon in his 2006 book,The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.^[87][88]

U.S. Supreme Courtamicus curiae briefs and early writings

In 1991, Gorsuch co-authored"Will the Gentlemen Please Yield? A Defense of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations," in theHofstra Law Review.^[34][89]

While in private practice, Gorsuch wroteamicus curiae briefs in three cases argued before theU.S. Supreme Court:California Public Employees' Retirement System v. Fezlen (1999),Devlin v. Scardelletti (2002), andDura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo (2005).^[34]

About the courts

U.S. Supreme Court

TheSupreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronymSCOTUS.^[90]

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices: theChief Justice of the United States and eightAssociate Justices. The justices are nominated by thepresident and confirmed with the"advice and consent" of theUnited States Senate perArticle II of the United States Constitution. As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," which means that justices have tenure for life unless they are removed by impeachment and subsequent conviction.^[91]

The Supreme Court is the only court established by theUnited States Constitution (inArticle III); all other federal courts are created byCongress.

The Supreme Court meets inWashington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[91]

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 12
Judges: 12
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:Jerome Holmes
Active judges:Robert Bacharach,Joel Carson,Allison Eid,Richard Federico,Harris Hartz,Jerome Holmes,Scott Matheson,Carolyn McHugh,Nancy Moritz,Gregory Alan Phillips,Veronica Rossman,Timothy Tymkovich Senior judges: Stephen Anderson,Bobby Baldock,Mary Briscoe,Wade Brorby,David Ebel,Paul Kelly,Carlos F. Lucero,Michael R. Murphy,Terrence O'Brien,John Porfilio,Stephanie Seymour

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is afederal appellate court with appellatejurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States. Appeals are heard in the Byron White U.S. Courthouse inDenver.

One judge from the Tenth Circuit has served on theSupreme Court of the United States.Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017 byDonald Trump (R).The Tenth Circuit hasappellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the Tenth Circuit are petitioned to theSupreme Court of the United States.

The Tenth Circuit hasjurisdiction over the United States district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

• District of Colorado
• District of Kansas
• District of New Mexico
• Eastern District of Oklahoma
• Northern District of Oklahoma
• Western District of Oklahoma
• District of Utah
• District of Wyoming

To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• United States Supreme Court cases and courts
• Supreme Court vacancy, 2017: An overview
• Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings
• U.S. senators on Neil Gorsuch's nomination
• United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Supreme Court of the United States website
• Biography from theFederal Judicial Center
• Profile byOyez
• Profile from theSupreme Court Historical Society
• Judge Gorsuch's biography from theTenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Footnotes

v • e Justices of theSupreme Court of the United States
Active justices	Chief justice:Roberts Associate justices:Alito •Barrett •Gorsuch •Jackson •Kagan •Kavanaugh •Sotomayor •Thomas
Senior justices	Breyer •Kennedy •Souter
Former chief justices	Burger •Chase •Ellsworth •Fuller •Hughes •Jay •Marshall •Rehnquist •Rutledge •Stone •Taft •Taney •Vinson •Waite •Warren • White
Former associate justices	O'Connor •Baldwin •Barbour •Black •Blackmun •Blair •Blatchford •Bradley •Brandeis •Brennan •Brewer •Brown •Burton •Butler •Byrnes •Campbell •Cardozo •Catron •Chase •Clark •Clarke •Clifford •Curtis •Cushing •Daniel •Davis •Day •Douglas •Duvall •Field •Fortas •Frankfurter •Ginsburg •Goldberg •Gray •Grier •Harlan I •Harlan II •Holmes •Hunt •Iredell •H. Jackson •R. Jackson •T. Johnson •W. Johnson, Jr. •J. Lamar •L. Lamar •Livingston •Lurton •Marshall •Matthews •McKenna •McKinley •McLean •McReynolds •Miller •Minton •Moody •Moore •Murphy •Nelson •Paterson •Peckham •Pitney •Powell •Reed •Roberts •W. Rutledge •Sanford •Scalia •Shiras •Stevens •Stewart •Story •Strong •Sutherland •Swayne •Thompson •Todd •Trimble •Van Devanter •Washington •Wayne •B. White •Whittaker •Wilson •Woodbury •Woods

v • e Federal judges who have served theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Active judges	Chief Judge: Jerome HolmesChief Judge: Timothy Tymkovich  •  Allison Eid  •  Harris Hartz  •  Carolyn McHugh  •  Nancy Moritz  •  Robert Bacharach  •  Scott Matheson (Utah)  •  Gregory Alan Phillips  •  Joel Carson  •  Veronica Rossman  •  Richard Federico
Senior judges	Terrence O'Brien  •  Michael R. Murphy (Federal judge)  •  Carlos Lucero  •  Mary Briscoe  •  Paul Kelly (United States Court of Appeals judge)  •  David Ebel  •  Wade Brorby  •  Bobby Baldock  •  Stephen Anderson  •  John Porfilio  •  Stephanie Seymour  •
Former judges	William E. Doyle (Colorado)  •  Neil Gorsuch  •  Robert Henry  •  Deanell Tacha  •  Michael McConnell (federal appeals judge)  •  William Holloway  •  Robert McWilliams  •  James E. Barrett (Federal judge)  •  John Hazelton Cotteral  •  Robert E. Lewis (Colorado judge)  •  Robert Williams (Oklahoma)  •  Orie Leon Phillips  •  George Thomas McDermott  •  Sam Gilbert Bratton  •  Alfred Murrah  •  Walter Huxman  •  David Thomas Lewis  •  Jean Breitenstein  •  Delmas Hill  •  John Hickey  •  James Logan  •  John Pickett  •  Oliver Seth  •
Former Chief judges	Mary Briscoe  •  Robert Henry  •  Deanell Tacha  •  Stephanie Seymour  •  Monroe McKay  •  William Holloway  •  Orie Leon Phillips  •  Sam Gilbert Bratton  •  Alfred Murrah  •  David Thomas Lewis  •  Oliver Seth  •

v • e Federal judges nominated byGeorge W. Bush
2001	Armijo •Bates •Beistline •Blackburn •Bowdre •Bunning •Bury •Caldwell •Camp •Cassell •Cebull •Clement •Clifton •Crane •Eagan •Engelhardt •Friot •Gibbons •Granade •Gregory •Gritzner •Haddon •Hartz •Heaton •Hicks •Howard •Johnson •Jorgenson •Krieger •Land •Leon •Mahan •Martinez •Martone •McConnell •Melloy •Mills •O'Brien •Parker •Payne •Prost •Reeves •Riley •Robinson •Rogers •Royal •Shedd •B. Smith •L. Smith •Walton •Wooten •Zainey
2002	Africk •Anderson •Autrey •Baylson •Cercone •Chesler •Clark •Collyer •Conner •Conti •Corrigan •Davis •Davis •Dorr •England •Ericksen •Fuller •Gardner •Godbey •Griesbach •Hanen •Hovland •Hudson •Jones •Jordan •Kinkeade •Klausner •Kugler •Leighton •Linares •Moses •Marra •Martinez •Martini •Mays •McVerry •Phillips •Raggi •Reade •Rose •Rufe •Savage •Schwab •Smith •St. Eve •Walter •White •Wolfson
2003	Adams •Altonaga •Bea •Benitez •Bennett •Boyle •Brack •Breen •Browning •Burns •Bybee •Callahan •Campbell •Cardone •Carney •Castel •Chertoff •Cohn •Colloton •Conrad •Coogler •Cook •Cooke •Crone •Der-Yeghiayan •Drell •Duffey •Duncan •Erickson •Feuerstein •Figa •Filip •Fischer •Fisher •Flanagan •Floyd •Frost •Gibson •Greer •Gruender •Guirola •Hall •Hardiman •Hayes •Herrera •Hicks •Holmes •Holwell •Hopkins •Houston •Irizarry •Jones •Junell •Karas •Kravitz •Martinez •McKnight •Minaldi •Montalvo •Mosman •Otero •Pickering •Prado •Pratter •Proctor •Quarles •Robart •Roberts •Robinson •Rodgers •Rodriguez •Sabraw •Sanchez •Saylor •Selna •Sharpe •Simon •Springmann •Stanceu •Steele •Stengel •Suko •Sutton •Sykes •Titus •Townes •Tymkovich •Van Antwerpen •Varlan •Wake •Wesley •White •Woodcock • Yeakel
2004	Alvarez •Benton •Boyko •Covington •Diamond •Harwell •Kelley •Schiavelli •Schneider •Starrett •Watson
2005	Alito •Barrett •Batten •Bianco •Brown •Burgess •Conrad •Cox •Crotty •Delgado-Colon •Dever •DuBose •Griffin •Griffith •Johnston •Kendall •Larson •Ludington •Mattice •McKeague •Neilson •Owen •Pryor •Roberts •Sandoval •Schiltz •Seabright •Smoak •Van Tatenhove •Vitaliano •Watkins •Zouhary
2006	Besosa •Bumb •Chagares •Cogan •Gelpi •Golden •Gordon •Gorsuch •Guilford •Hillman •Holmes •Ikuta •D. Jordan •K. Jordan •Kavanaugh •Miller •Moore •Shepherd •Sheridan •Smith •Whitney •Wigenton
2007	Anderson •Aycock •Bailey •Bryant •Davis •DeGiusti •Dow •Elrod •Fairbank •Fischer •Frizzell •Gutierrez •Hall •Hardiman •Haynes •Howard •Jarvey •Jones •Jonker •Kapala •Kays •Laplante •Limbaugh •Lioi •Livingston •Maloney •Mauskopf •Mendez •Miller •Neff •O'Connor •O'Grady •O'Neill •Osteen •Ozerden •Reidinger •Sammartino •Schroeder •Settle •Smith •Snow •Southwick •Suddaby •Sullivan •Thapar •Tinder •Van Bokkelen •Wood •Wright •Wu
2008	Agee •Anello •Arguello •Brimmer •Gardephe •Goldberg •Jones •Kethledge •Lawrence •Matsumoto •Melgren •Murphy •Scriven •Seibel •Slomsky •Trenga •Waddoups •White

v • e Federal judges nominated to Article III courts byDonald Trump
2017	Thomas Parker •Elizabeth Branch •Neil Gorsuch •Amul Thapar •David C. Nye •John K. Bush •Kevin Newsom •Timothy J. Kelly •Ralph Erickson •Scott Palk •Trevor McFadden •Joan Larsen •Amy Coney Barrett •Allison Eid •Stephanos Bibas •Donald Coggins Jr. •Dabney Friedrich •Greg Katsas •Steven Grasz •Don Willett •James Ho •William L. Campbell Jr. •David Stras •Tilman E. Self III •Karen Gren Scholer •Terry A. Doughty •Claria Horn Boom •John Broomes •Rebecca Grady Jennings •Kyle Duncan •Kurt Engelhardt •Michael B. Brennan •Joel Carson •Robert Wier •Fernando Rodriguez Jr. •Annemarie Carney Axon •
2018	Andrew Oldham •Amy St. Eve •Michael Scudder •John Nalbandian •Mark Bennett •Andrew Oldham •Britt Grant •Colm Connolly •Maryellen Noreika •Jill Otake •Jeffrey Beaverstock •Emily Coody Marks •Holly Lou Teeter •Julius Richardson •Charles B. Goodwin •Barry Ashe •Stan Baker •A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. •Terry F. Moorer •Susan Baxter •William Jung •Alan Albright •Dominic Lanza •Eric Tostrud •Charles Williams •Nancy E. Brasel •James Sweeney •Kari A. Dooley •Marilyn J. Horan •Robert Summerhays •Brett Kavanaugh •David Porter •Liles Burke •Michael Juneau •Peter Phipps •Lance Walker •Richard Sullivan •Eli Richardson •Ryan Nelson •Chad F. Kenney, Sr. •Susan Brnovich •William M. Ray, II •Jeremy Kernodle •Thomas Kleeh •J.P. Hanlon •Mark Norris •Jonathan Kobes •Michael Brown •David Counts
2019	Eric Miller •Chad Readler •Eric Murphy •Neomi Rao •Paul Matey •Allison Jones Rushing •Bridget S. Bade •Roy Altman •Patrick Wyrick •Holly Brady •David Morales •Andrew Brasher •J. Campbell Barker •Rodolfo Ruiz •Daniel Domenico •Michael Truncale •Michael Park •Joseph Bianco •Raúl Arias-Marxuach •Daniel Collins •Joshua Wolson •Wendy Vitter •Kenneth Kiyul Lee •Kenneth Bell •Stephen Clark •Howard Nielson •Rodney Smith •Jean-Paul Boulee •Sarah Daggett Morrison •Rossie Alston •Pamela A. Barker •Corey Maze •Greg Guidry •Matthew Kacsmaryk •Allen Winsor •Carl Nichols •James Cain, Jr. •Tom Barber •J. Nicholas Ranjan •Clifton L. Corker •Peter Phipps •Daniel Bress •Damon Leichty •Wendy W. Berger •Peter Welte •Michael Liburdi •William Shaw Stickman •Mark Pittman •Karin J. Immergut •Jason Pulliam •Brantley Starr •Brian Buescher •James Wesley Hendrix •Timothy Reif •Martha Pacold •Sean Jordan •Mary Rowland •John M. Younge •Jeff Brown •Ada Brown •Steven Grimberg •Stephanie A. Gallagher •Steven Seeger •Stephanie Haines •Mary McElroy •David J. Novak •Frank W. Volk •Charles Eskridge •Rachel Kovner •Justin Walker •T. Kent Wetherell •Danielle Hunsaker •Lee Rudofsky •Jennifer Philpott Wilson • William Nardini •Steven Menashi •Robert J. Luck •Eric Komitee •Douglas Cole •John Sinatra •Sarah Pitlyk •Barbara Lagoa •Richard Myers II •Sherri Lydon •Patrick Bumatay •R. Austin Huffaker • Miller Baker •Anuraag Singhal •Karen Marston •Jodi Dishman •Mary Kay Vyskocil •Matthew McFarland •John Gallagher •Bernard Jones •Kea Riggs •Robert J. Colville •Stephanie Dawkins Davis •Gary R. Brown •David Barlow • Lewis Liman
2020	Lawrence VanDyke •Daniel Traynor •John Kness •Joshua Kindred •Philip Halpern •Silvia Carreno-Coll •Scott Rash •John Heil •Anna Manasco •John L. Badalamenti •Drew Tipton •Andrew Brasher •Cory Wilson •Scott Hardy •David Joseph •Matthew Schelp •John Cronan •Justin Walker •Brett H. Ludwig •Christy Wiegand •Thomas Cullen •Diane Gujarati •Stanley Blumenfeld •Mark Scarsi •John Holcomb •Stephen P. McGlynn •Todd Robinson •Hala Jarbou •David Dugan •Iain D. Johnston •Franklin U. Valderrama •John Hinderaker •Roderick Young •Michael Newman •Aileen Cannon •James Knepp •Kathryn Kimball Mizelle • Benjamin Beaton • Kristi Johnson •Toby Crouse •Philip Calabrese •Taylor McNeel •Thomas Kirsch •Stephen Vaden •Katherine Crytzer •Fernando Aenlle-Rocha •Charles Atchley •Joseph Dawson
2025	Whitney Hermandorfer •Joshua Divine •Cristian M. Stevens •Zachary Bluestone •Emil Bove •Edward Artau •Kyle Dudek•Maria Lanahan•Jennifer Mascott•Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe•Chad Meredith•Harold Mooty•Jordan Pratt•Edmund LaCour•Bill Lewis•Eric Tung•Rebecca Taibleson•Joshua D. Dunlap•Bill Mercer