Gorsuch was born on August 29, 1967, inDenver, Colorado.[7] His parents wereAnne Gorsuch Burford (née McGill) and David Ronald Gorsuch.[8] He was the eldest of three children,[9] and is a fourth-generation Coloradan.[10] John McGill, his maternal grandfather, was a surgeon, and his paternal grandfather, John Gorsuch, was an established lawyer inDenver, Colorado.[11] Both of Gorsuch's parents were also attorneys.[12] They encouraged their children to engage in debate, often spontaneously.[13] From 1976 to 1980, Anne Burford served in theColorado House of Representatives. In 1981, she was appointed by PresidentRonald Reagan as the first woman to serve asadministrator of theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[14][13] Her conservative views contrasted with those of her husband, who was aliberal.[15]
Gorsuch attended Christ the King Roman Catholic School, a privategrade school in Denver. The school's moral lessons influenced him and he was remembered by classmates for assuming strong stances. He assisted his mother in her campaign for the Colorado legislature at age nine.[13] After her appointment, Gorsuch's family moved toBethesda, Maryland. He enrolled inGeorgetown Preparatory School,[16] a selectiveJesuitcollege-preparatory school, arriving as a freshman in 1981.[17] He was two years junior to future justiceBrett Kavanaugh, a classmate he later clerked with at the Supreme Court. Gorsuch was a member of Georgetown Prep'sdebate, forensics, and international relations clubs,[18] and served as aUnited States Senate page in the early 1980s.[19] He graduated in 1985 as student body president; in contrast to Kavanaugh, he was described as a fairly outgoing and extroverted student.[18][20]
Gorsuch attendedColumbia University after high school, graduating in 1988 with aBachelor of Arts,cum laude, in history and politics. He undertook a heavier courseload to graduate in three years.[21] As an undergraduate, he wrote for theColumbia Daily Spectator[22] and co-founded the satirical student publicationThe Fed in 1986.[23][24] Gorsuch distinguished himself as an active debater and an ardent conservative, publishing pieces that criticized left-wing politics. After a brief stint as a writer for a short-lived journal, he led efforts to establishThe Fed as a conservative alternative to liberal campus newspapers.[21] He was a member of thePhi Gamma Delta fraternity[25] and was inducted into thePhi Beta Kappa honor society.[26][21][27]
Gorsuch served as alaw clerk for JudgeDavid B. Sentelle of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991 to 1992. After spending a year atOxford, later earning a doctorate as aMarshall Scholar, Gorsuch clerked for JusticesByron White andAnthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994.[26][29][36] His work with White occurred right after White retired from the Supreme Court; therefore, Gorsuch assisted White with his work on the Tenth Circuit, where White sat by designation.[26] Gorsuch was part of a group of five law clerks assigned that year that includedBrett Kavanaugh, who described Gorsuch at the time, saying: "He fit into the place very easily. He's just an easy guy to get along with. He doesn't have sharp elbows. We had a wide range of views, but we all really got along well."[37]
Private law practice
Instead of joining an established law firm, Gorsuch decided to join the two-year-old boutique firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel (nowKellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick), where he focused on trial work.[13] After winning his first trial as lead attorney, a jury member told Gorsuch he was likePerry Mason.[13] He was an associate in the Washington, D.C., law firm from 1995 to 1997 and a partner from 1998 to 2005.[26][38] Gorsuch's clients included Colorado billionairePhilip Anschutz.[39] At Kellogg Huber, Gorsuch focused on commercial matters, includingcontracts,antitrust,RICO, andsecurities fraud.[26]
During his time on the Tenth Circuit, ten of Gorsuch's law clerks went on to become Supreme Court clerks, and he was sometimes regarded as a "feeder judge".[53] One of his former clerks,Jonathan Papik, became an associate justice of theNebraska Supreme Court in 2018.[54]
Freedom of religion
Gorsuch advocates a broad definition ofreligious freedom that is inimical to church–state separation advocates.[55][56][57]
InPleasant Grove City v. Summum (2007), he joined JudgeMichael W. McConnell's dissent from the denial of rehearingen banc, taking the view that the government's display of a donatedTen Commandments monument in a public park did not obligate the government to display other offered monuments.[61] The Supreme Court subsequently adopted most of the dissent's view, reversing the Tenth Circuit's judgment.[59] Gorsuch has written, "the law [...] 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".[62]
Administrative law
Gorsuch has called for reconsideration ofChevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), in which the Supreme Court instructed courts to grant deference to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous laws and regulations. InGutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016), Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous panel finding that court review was required before an executive agency could reject the circuit court's interpretation of an immigration law.[63][64]
In 2013, Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel finding that federal courts could not hear a challenge to Colorado'sinternet sales tax.[71] A unanimous Supreme Court reversed that ruling inDirect Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl (2015).[70] In 2016, the Tenth Circuit panel rejected the challenger's dormant commerce clause claim, with Gorsuch writing a concurrence.[72]
InEnergy and Environmental Legal Institute v. Joshua Epel (2015), Gorsuch held that Colorado'smandates for renewable energy did not violate the commerce clause by putting out-of-state coal companies at a disadvantage.[73] He wrote that the Colorado renewable energy law "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".[74][75]
Campaign finance
InRiddle v. Hickenlooper (2014), Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel of the Tenth Circuit in finding that it was unconstitutional for a Colorado law to set the limit on donations for write-in candidates at half the amount for major party candidates.[76] He added a concurrence noting that although the standard of review ofcampaign finance in the United States is unclear, the Colorado law would fail even underintermediate scrutiny.[77]
Civil rights
InPlanned Parenthood v. Herbert (2016), Gorsuch wrote for the four dissenting judges when the Tenth Circuit denied a full rehearing of a divided panel opinion that had ordered the Utah governor to resume the organization's funding, which Herbert had blocked in response to avideo controversy.[78][79]
InA.M. v. Holmes (2016), the Tenth Circuit considered a case in which a 13-year-old child was arrested for burping and laughing in gym class. The child was handcuffed and arrested based on aNew Mexico statute that makes it amisdemeanor to disrupt school activities. The child's family brought a federal§ 1983 civil rights action against school officials and theschool resource officer who made the arrest, arguing that it was afalse arrest that violated the child's constitutional rights. In a 94-page majority opinion, the Tenth Circuit held that the defendants enjoyedqualified immunity from suit.[80] Gorsuch wrote a four-page dissent, arguing that theNew Mexico Court of Appeals had "long ago alerted law enforcement" that the statute that the officer relied upon for the child's arrest does not criminalize noises or diversions that merely disturb order in a classroom.[80][81][82]
Criminal law
In 2009, Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous panel finding that a court may still order criminals to payrestitution even after it missed a statutory deadline.[83] The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling 5–4 inDolan v. United States (2010).[70]
InUnited States v. Games-Perez (2012), Gorsuch ruled on a case where afelon owned a gun in violation of18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(1), but alleged that he did not know that he was a felon at the time. Gorsuch joined the majority in upholding the conviction based on Tenth Circuit precedent, but filed a concurring opinion arguing that said precedent was wrongly decided: "The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must provemens rea here applies with full force."[84] In the 2019 caseRehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court overruled this decision, with Gorsuch joining.
In 2013, Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel finding that intent does not need to be proven under a bank fraud statute.[85] A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed that ruling inLoughrin v. United States (2014).[70] In 2015, Gorsuch wrote a dissent to the denial of rehearingen banc when the Tenth Circuit found that a convicted sex offender had to register with Kansas after he moved to the Philippines.[86] A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit inNichols v. United States (2016).[70]
Flitton v. Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc., 614 F. 3d 1173 (2010), on jurisdiction over attorney fees in a gender discrimination and retaliation case
McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F. 3d 1288 (2011), dismissing class action lawsuit over inhumane jail conditions
Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. NLRB, 692 F. 3d 1068 (2012), dismissing a union's claim that the NLRB was wrong to not find an unfair labor practice, when an employer dismissed a worker for deliberately disconnecting a customer's gas supply (no evidence that it treated this employee differently)
United States v. Games-Perez, 695 F. 3d 1104 (2012), on imprisonment without trial
Niemi v. Lasshofer, 728 F. 3d 1252 (2013) fugitive disentitlement doctrine
Riddle v.Hickenlooper, 742 F. 3d 922 (2014), stating: "No one before us disputes that the act ofcontributing to political campaigns implicates a 'basic constitutional freedom,' one lying 'at the foundation of a free society' and enjoying a significant relationship to the right to speak and associate—both expressly protected First Amendment activities.Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 26 (1976)"
Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F. 3d 48 (2014), freedom to practice religion in prison
United States v. Mitchell (2016), evidence, tracking without awarrant
NLRB v. Community Health Services,812 F.3d 768 (2016), dissenting, arguing against an NLRB decision that interim earnings should not be disregarded when calculating back pay for employees whose hours were unlawfully reduced
TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board,833 F. 3d 1206 (2016)Archived March 29, 2017, at theWayback Machine, dissenting against the majority's judgment that an employee was unjustly dismissed.
President Donald Trump introduces Gorsuch, accompanied by his wife Marie Louise Gorsuch, as his nominee for the Supreme Court at theWhite House on January 31, 2017.
Trump formally transmitted his nomination to the Senate on February 1, 2017.[100] TheAmerican Bar Association unanimously gave Gorsuch its top rating—"Well Qualified"—to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.[101] His confirmation hearing before the Senate started on March 20, 2017.[102]
On April 3, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination with a party-line 11–9 vote.[103] On April 6, 2017, Democratsfilibustered (preventedcloture) the confirmation vote, after which Republicans invoked the "nuclear option", allowing a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee to be broken by a simple majority vote.[104]
John Finnis, who supervised Gorsuch's dissertation at Oxford, said, "The allegation is entirely without foundation. The book is meticulous in its citation of primary sources. The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is, frankly, absurd." Kuzma said, "I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the 'Baby/Infant Doe' case that occurred in 1982."[106] In his book on Gorsuch, John Greenya described how Gorsuch was challenged during his confirmation hearings concerning some of his dissertation advisor's more strident views, which Gorsuch generally disagreed with.[109]
On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court by a 54–45 vote, with three Democrats (Heidi Heitkamp,Joe Manchin, andJoe Donnelly) joining all Republicans in attendance.[110][111]
Gorsuch received his commission on April 8, 2017.[112] He was sworn into office on Monday, April 10, 2017, in two ceremonies. The chief justice of the United States administered the constitutional oath of office in a private ceremony at 9 a.m. at the Supreme Court, making Gorsuch the 101st associate justice of the Court. At 11 a.m., Justice Kennedy administered the judicial oath of office in a public ceremony at the White House Rose Garden.[113][114][115]
U.S. Supreme Court (2017–present)
According toThe New York Times, Gorsuch's time on the Supreme Court has been defined by his "folksy demeanor and a flashy writing style" withJonathan H. Adler presenting Gorsuch and fellow Trump-appointed justice Kavanaugh as "a study in contrasts".[116] TheLos Angeles Times described his rulings as those of "a wild card" and wrote that Gorsuch tends "to go his own way and chart a course that does not always align with the traditional views on the right or the left".Voxhas called him the court's "most libertarian" justice.[117][118]
According toCNBC, Gorsuch's rulings address "historical injustice in a way that seems at odds with Republican attacks on 'woke' history's being taught in schools",[119] particularly on questions involving Native Americans and tribal law.[120] Gorsuch has a reputation as the most defendant-friendly justice on the court's conservative wing,[121][122] withSlate calling him and Ketanji Brown Jackson "the Supreme Court's oddest pairing" owing to their occasional tendency to side together on cases involving defendants' rights in criminal trials;[123] Gorsuch sided with criminal defendants in 45 percent of cases the court heard.[118] In corporate law, Gorsuch's rulings have exemplified "procedural originalism", whatSlate has called "taking the history of jurisdiction seriously, and applying the original meaning even when it leads to results that rankle the highest-paid corporate litigators in the game".[124]
Vox's Ian Millhiser has written that, while Gorsuch's rulings sometimes depart from orthodoxy on areas where there is philosophical disagreement among conservatives, they "reliably align with the consensus" in areas where there is unanimity in conservative ideology.[125] A 2024 quantitative analysis of Gorsuch's rulings found that he broadly tended to side with justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito more than any other two justices.[126]
Banking regulation
Gorsuch wrote his first U.S. Supreme Court decision for a unanimous court inHenson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ___ (2017). The Court ruled against the borrowers, holding thatSantander in this case was not a debt collector under theFair Debt Collection Practices Act since it purchased the original defaulted car loans fromCitiFinancial for pennies on the dollar, making Santander the owner of the debts and not merely an agent.[127] When the act was enacted, regulations were put on institutions that collected other companies' debts, but the act left unaddressed businesses collecting their own debts.[128][129]
Gorsuch authored the majority opinion inKennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), which concerned a public high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games. The opinion held that the coach's conduct was protected by both the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of theFirst Amendment, and that the school's attempt to stop him was not mandated by the amendment's Establishment Clause.[132]
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), which held that the Free Speech Clause protected a web designer's freedom to sell custom wedding websites only for opposite-sex weddings, notwithstanding a Colorado law prohibiting businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
LGBT rights
In 2017, inPavan v. Smith, the Supreme Court "summarily overruled" the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision to deny same-sex married parents the same right to appear on the birth certificate.[133] Gorsuch wrote a dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito, arguing that the Court should have fully heard the arguments of the case.[134]
In 2020, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in the combined cases ofBostock v. Clayton County,Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, andR.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ruling that businesses cannot discriminate in employment against LGBTQ people. He argued that discrimination based on sexual orientation was illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, because the employer would be discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex".[135] The ruling was 6–3, with Gorsuch joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's four Democratic appointees.[136][137] Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented from the decision, arguing that it improperly extended the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.[138]
In October 2020, Gorsuch agreed with the justices in an "apparently unanimous" decision to deny an appeal fromKim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[139] In June 2021, he joined the justices in the unanimousFulton v. City of Philadelphia decision, ruling in favor of a Catholic adoption agency that had been denied a contract by the City of Philadelphia due to the agency's refusal to adopt to same-sex couples.[140] Gorsuch and Thomas joined Alito's concurrence, which argued for reconsidering, possibly overturning,Employment Division v. Smith, "an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices."[141] Also in 2021, Gorsuch was one of three justices, with Thomas and Alito, who voted to hear an appeal from a Washington State florist who had refused service to a same-sex couple based on her religious beliefs against same-sex marriage.[142][143][144] In November 2021, Gorsuch dissented from the Court's 6–3 decision to reject an appeal fromMercy San Juan Medical Center, a hospital affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, which had sought to deny ahysterectomy to a transgender patient on religious grounds.[145] The decision to reject the appeal left in place a lower court ruling in the patient's favor; Thomas and Alito also dissented.[146][147] In November 2023, Gorsuch voted with the 6–3 majority to decline to hear a case against Washington State's ban on conversion therapy for minors, allowing the law to stand; Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito dissented.[148][149]
Gorsuch wrote a statement regarding the denial of an application for a stay presented to Roberts inGuedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, a 2019D.C. Circuit case challenging the Trump administration's ban onbump stocks. In his statement Gorsuch criticized the Trump Administration's action as well as the justification the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit used for upholding the ban.[151][152]
Vagueness doctrine
InSessions v. Dimaya (2018), the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 to uphold the Ninth Circuit's decision that the residual clause in theImmigration and Nationality Act wasunconstitutionally vague. Gorsuch joined Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the opinion, and wrote a separate concurrence reiterating the importance of the vagueness doctrine within Scalia's 2015 opinion inJohnson.[153] InUnited States v. Davis (2019), Gorsuch wrote the Opinion of the Court striking down the residual clause of theHobbs Act based on the rationale used inDimaya.[154][155]
Abortion
In December 2018, Gorsuch dissented when the Court voted against hearing cases brought by the states of Louisiana and Kansas to deny Medicaid funding toPlanned Parenthood.[156] He and Alito joined Thomas's dissent arguing that it was the Court's job to hear the case.[157]
In February 2019, Gorsuch sided with three of the Court's other conservative justices, rejecting astay to temporarily block a lawrestricting abortion in Louisiana.[158] The law that the court temporarily stayed, in a 5–4 decision, would require that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges in a hospital.[159] In June 2020, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's abortion restriction inJune Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, a 5–4 decision; Gorsuch was among the four dissenters.[160][161] In September 2021, the Supreme Courtdeclined a petition to block aTexas law banning abortion after six weeks; the vote was 5–4 with Gorsuch in the majority, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.[162]
Gorsuch is regarded as an authority onAmerican Indian law.[164] During his time on the Supreme Court, he has frequently affirmed tribal rights; his appointment to the Court was supported by multiple tribes and Native American organizations due to his favorable rulings as a Tenth Circuit judge.[165][166]
In March 2019, Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices (in two plurality opinions) in a 5–4 majority inWashington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.[167] The Court's decision sided with theYakama Nation, striking down aWashington state tax on transporting gasoline, on the basis of an 1855 treaty in which the Yakama ceded a large portion of Washington in exchange for certain rights.[168] Gorsuch ended his concurrence by writing: "Really, this case just tells an old and familiar story. The State of Washington includes millions of acres that the Yakamas ceded to the United States under significant pressure. In return, the government supplied a handful of modest promises. The state is now dissatisfied with the consequences of one of those promises. It is a new day, and now it wants more. But today and to its credit, the Court holds the parties to the terms of their deal. It is the least we can do."[169]
In May 2019, Gorsuch again joined the four more liberal justices in a decision favorable to Native Americans' treaty rights, signing on toJustice Sotomayor's opinion to reach a 5–4 decision inHerrera v. Wyoming. The case held that hunting rights inMontana andWyoming, granted by the U.S. government to the Native AmericanCrow people by an 1868 treaty, were not extinguished by the 1890 grant of statehood to Wyoming.[170]
In July 2020, Gorsuch again joined the liberal justices to make a 5–4 majority inMcGirt v. Oklahoma. The case considered whether much of eastern Oklahoma still remained under the jurisdiction of the "Five Civilized Tribes", given that the Native American Treaties that had designated the region as under their reservation status had never been dissolved by Congress, and, if so, whether crimes committed by Native Americans against other Native Americans on tribal land were under the jurisdiction of Native Courts.[171] The landmark decision in the affirmative, written by Gorsuch, found that "For Major Crimes Act purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains 'Indian country.'"[172][173] In the opinion, he wrote: "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."[173] The case was later reviewed in the June 2022 caseOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which considered whether non-Natives who committed crimes against Natives on Native American territory can be charged under the jurisdiction of Native American tribal courts.[174][175] While the state of Oklahoma had initially argued for the overturning ofMcGirt, the Court agreed to hear only issues relating to the impacts ofMcGirt.[176] The 5–4 decision by JusticeBrett Kavanaugh opposed the more expanded viewpoint of non-Native criminal jurisdiction, with the opinion giving jurisdiction over such crimes to both tribal and federal/state governments. Gorsuch derided the opinion in his dissent, writing, "Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts."[177][178]
On June 15, 2022, Gorsuch, Barrett, and the three liberal justices ruled in favor of the Native American Tribes of Texas in the caseYsleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas. The case concerned a dispute over whether Texas could control and regulate gambling on Texan Native American reservations. The initial conflict had developed from the tribes' having been in a trust with Texas from 1968 to 1987 before being granted a federal trust, resulting in a statute governing the tribes' subjugation to Texas's gambling restrictions.[179] The ruling emphasized that the tribes have the power to regulate electronic bingo games on their land regardless of the state's prohibition of non-prohibited gambling. Thus, as long as a game is not outright prohibited by the state of Texas, the state government cannot impose regulations upon tribal games. Gorsuch emphasized in his opinion that "None of this is to say that the Tribe may offer gaming on whatever terms it wishes [...] Other gaming activities are subject to tribal regulation and must conform to the terms and conditions set forth in federal law."[180]
COVID-19 restrictions
On November 26, 2020, Gorsuch joined the majority opinion inRoman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, which struck downCOVID-19 restrictions imposed by the state ofNew York on houses of worship.[181]
On May 18, 2023, Gorsuch issued a statement about the Court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by several states aimed at continuingTitle 42 expulsions of immigrants, a policy instituted to prevent the introduction of COVID-19 cases to the United States. His statement criticized many of the restrictions the government had imposed since the pandemic started and said, "Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country."[182]
Legal philosophy
Gorsuch is a proponent oforiginalism, the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as perceived at the time of enactment, and oftextualism, the idea that statutes should be interpreted literally, without considering the legislative history and underlying purpose of the law.[2][3][4] An editorial in theNational Catholic Register opined that Gorsuch's judicial decisions lean more towardnatural law philosophy.[183]
In January 2019, Bonnie Kristian ofThe Week wrote that an "unexpected civil libertarian alliance" was developing between Gorsuch and Sotomayor "in defense of robust due process rights and skepticism of law enforcement overreach."[184]
Voting alignment
FiveThirtyEight usedLee Epstein et al.'sJudicial Common Space scores[185] (which are not based on a judge's behavior, but rather the ideology scores of either home state senators or the appointing president) to find a close alignment between the conservatism of other appellate and Supreme Court judges such as Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito.[186]The Washington Post's statistical analysis estimated that the ideologies of most of Trump's announced candidates were "statistically indistinguishable" and also associated Gorsuch with Kavanaugh and Alito.[187]
Judicial activism
Gorsuch in 2019
In a 2016 speech atCase Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.[188]
In a 2005National Review article, Gorsuch argued that "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda" and that they are "failing to reach out and persuade the public". He wrote that, in doing so, American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues likegay marriage,school vouchers, andassisted suicide, and this has led to a compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent. Gorsuch wrote that American liberals' "overweening addiction" to using the courts for social debate is "bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary".[50][189]
Federalism and state power
Justin Marceau, a professor at theUniversity of Denver'sSturm College of Law, called Gorsuch "a predictably socially conservative judge who tends to favor state power over federal power". Marceau added that this is important because federal laws have been used to try to reel in "rogue" state laws incivil rights cases.[190]
Assisted suicide
In July 2006, Gorsuch's bookThe Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, developed from his doctoral thesis, was published byPrinceton University Press.[41][191][192][193] In the book, Gorsuch makes clear his personal opposition toeuthanasia andassisted suicide, arguing that the U.S. should "retain existing law [banning assisted suicide and euthanasia] on the basis that human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."[62][192][194]
Statutory interpretation
Gorsuch has been considered to follow in Scalia's footsteps as atextualist instatutory interpretation of the plain meaning of the law.[195][196] This was exemplified in his majority opinion inBostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), which ruled that Title VII of theCivil Rights Act of 1964 grants protection from employment discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity. Gorsuch wrote in the decision, "An employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."[197][198][199]
Personal life
Gorsuch and family with Donald Trump, Anthony Kennedy, and Mike Pence prior[200] to his swearing-in
Gorsuch and his wife, Marie Louise Gorsuch,[201] a British citizen, met at Oxford. The two married at St. Nicholas' Anglican Church inHenley-on-Thames in 1996.[202][203] They live inBoulder, Colorado, and have two daughters, Emma and Belinda.[204][205][206]
Gorsuch enjoys the outdoors andfly fishing; he went fly fishing on at least one occasion with Justice Scalia.[10][207] He raises horses, chickens, and goats, and often arranges ski trips with colleagues and friends.[59]
He has authored three nonfiction books. The first,The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, was published byPrinceton University Press in July 2006.[208] He is a co-author ofThe Law of Judicial Precedent, published by Thomson West in 2016.[38] In 2024, Gorsuch co-wroteOver Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law, a critique of overregulation and mass incarceration.
In 2017, after his announcement as a Supreme Court nominee,the New York Times reported that Gorsuch owned atimeshare outsideGranby, Colorado, with associates ofPhilip Anschutz, that was later sold the same year.[39] Reporting fromPolitico in April 2023 revealed that Gorsuch had sold the cabin to Brian Duffy, the CEO of the law firmGreenberg Traurig, which litigates cases before the Supreme Court, but failed to disclose the purchaser's identity on his federal disclosure forms.[209] The property was listed for sale for a few years but did not go under contract until the week after Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court.[209][210] Since 2017, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the Supreme Court.[209][211]
When the couple returned to the United States they joined Holy Comforter, anEpiscopal parish inVienna, Virginia, attending weekly services. Gorsuch volunteered there as an usher.[215] The Gorsuch family later attended St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, a liberal church with a longstanding open-door policy for theLGBT community.[94][218][219] During his 2017 confirmation hearing, responding to a senator's question about his faith, Gorsuch replied, "I attend an Episcopal church in Boulder with my family, senator."[220][221][222] After marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony and joining an Episcopal church, Gorsuch has not publicly clarified his religious affiliation.[217]
In 2017, Gorsuch sold a property he co-owned for $1.8 million to the CEO of a prominent law firm,Greenberg Traurig.[223] This has raised ethics questions, including why Gorsuch did not list the buyer on his ethics form when reporting a profit of between $250,000 and $500,000.[223][224][225]
Gorsuch, Neil (2013). "Intention and the Allocation of Risk". In Keown, John; George, Robert (eds.).Reason, Morality, and Law. The Philosophy of John Finnis. Oxford University Press. pp. 413–424.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199675500.003.0026.ISBN978-0-19-967550-0.
^"Columbia Daily Spectator". spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu. October 1, 1985.Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. RetrievedJanuary 31, 2017.
^The same 1993 Term, Gorsuch's Harvard Law School classmates David T. Goldberg (HLS 1991) andJulius Genachowski (HLS 1991) bothclerked for Justice David Souter.
^"Judge Neil M. Gorsuch".Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Archived fromthe original on February 2, 2017. RetrievedFebruary 6, 2018.
^French, David (August 4, 2024)."Neil Gorsuch Has a Few Thoughts About America Today".New York Times. RetrievedMarch 18, 2025.This was an interesting element of the book to me and something that people who are not familiar with your jurisprudence might not know — it's that you've long been a champion of the rights of criminal defendants.
^Stern, Mark (January 7, 2019)."Sotomayor and Gorsuch Resume Their Fight for the Future of the Sixth Amendment".Slate. RetrievedMarch 18, 2025.Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch are on a mission to restore criminal defendants' constitutional rights... It's no surprise that Sotomayor and Gorsuch are emerging as the court's staunchest defenders of the Sixth Amendment.
Media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote