| Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination | |
|---|---|
 President Trump announcing the nomination, accompanied by Gorsuch and his wife, Louise | |
| Nominee | Neil Gorsuch |
| Nominated by | Donald Trump (president of the United States) |
| Succeeding | Antonin Scalia (associate justice) |
| Date nominated | January 31, 2017 |
| Date confirmed | April 7, 2017 |
| Outcome | Approved by theU.S. Senate |
| Vote of theSenate Judiciary Committee | |
| Votes in favor | 11 |
| Votes against | 9 |
| Result | Reported favorably |
| Senatecloture votes | |
| Votes in favor | 55 |
| Votes against | 45 |
| Result | First cloture motion failed, but the second cloture motion succeeded due to the passage of the "nuclear option” |
| Senate confirmation vote | |
| Votes in favor | 54 |
| Votes against | 45 |
| Result | Confirmed |
| ||
|---|---|---|
Business and personal
45th and 47th President of the United States Tenure
Shutdowns Speeches
Opinion polls Legal affairs
Impeachments   | ||
On January 31, 2017, soon aftertaking office,PresidentDonald Trump, aRepublican, nominatedNeil Gorsuch forAssociate Justice of theSupreme Court of the United States to succeedAntonin Scalia, who had died almost one year earlier. Then-presidentBarack Obama, aDemocrat, nominatedMerrick Garland to succeed Scalia on March 16, 2016, but the Republican-controlledU.S. Senate did not vote on the nomination.Majority leaderMitch McConnell declared that as thepresidential election cycle had already commenced, it made the appointment of the next justice a political issue to be decided by voters. TheSenate Judiciary Committee refused to consider theGarland nomination, thus keeping the vacancy open through the end ofObama's presidency on January 20, 2017.
When nominated, Gorsuch was a sitting judge on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a position to which he had been appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush in 2006. Democratic Senators launched afilibuster against Gorsuch's nomination to block his confirmation. However, Republicans invoked the "nuclear option", eliminating the filibuster with respect to Supreme Court nominees.[1] The Senate ultimately confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court by a 54–45 vote on April 7, 2017 (all Republicans and three Democrats voted in his favor). Ten days after his confirmation, Gorsuch heard his first case as the 101st associate justice of the Court, inAnthony Perry vs. Merit Systems Protection Board.[2]
On February 13, 2016,Associate JusticeAntonin Scalia died unexpectedly.[3][4] His death triggered a protracted political battle that did not end until the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination in April 2017.
Political commentators at the time widely recognized Scalia as one of the mostconservative members of the Court, and noted that then-PresidentBarack Obama had an opportunity to name a moreliberal replacement, a move that could alter the Court's ideological balance for many years into the future.[5] Obama ultimatelynominatedMerrick Garland on March 16, 2016. His confirmation would have given Democratic appointees a majority on the Supreme Court for the first time since the 1970s.[6] But the Senate had a Republican majority since 2015, so Garland could only be confirmed by a bipartisan majority.
However, Republican Senate leaders declared that the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president, citing the fact that the vacancy arose during Obama's final year as president.[7] This was the first time in 150 years that the Senate refused to hold a confirmation vote on a Senate nominee.[8]
Garland's nomination therefore expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the114th Congress, 293 days after it had been submitted to the Senate.[7] As a result of thenomination's defeat, Scalia's seat remained vacant until afterDonald Trump's January 20, 2017presidential inauguration.[7] Only the 15th time in U.S. Senate history that a Supreme Court nomination had lapsed at the end of asession of Congress,[9] many Democrats reacted angrily to the Senate's refusal to consider Garland, with SenatorJeff Merkley describing the vacant seat as a "stolen seat".[10] However, Republicans such as SenatorChuck Grassley argued that the Senate was within its rights to refuse to consider a nominee until the inauguration of a new president.[11]
During the2016 presidential campaign, while Garland remained before the Senate, Trump released twolists of potential nominees. On May 18, 2016, Trump released a short list of eleven judges for nomination to the Scalia vacancy.[12] In September 2016, Trump released a second list of ten possible nominees, this time including three minorities.[13]
Both lists were assembled by theFederalist Society andThe Heritage Foundation.[14]Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society played a major role in the creation of the second list, which included Gorsuch.[15][16] The Trump administration also considered nominatingBrett Kavanaugh andAmy Coney Barrett to the seat, who were later nominated and confirmed after the retirement ofAnthony Kennedy in 2018 and the death ofRuth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, respectively.[17]
After winning the presidential election, Trump and White House CounselDon McGahn interviewed four individuals for the Supreme Court opening, all of whom had appeared on one of the two previously released lists.[14] The four individuals were federal appellate judgesTom Hardiman,Bill Pryor and Neil Gorsuch, as well as federal district judgeAmul Thapar, all appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush[14] While Pryor had been seen by many as the early front-runner due to the backing of Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions, manyevangelicals expressed resistance to him, and the final decision ultimately came down to Gorsuch or Hardiman.[14] Hardiman had the support of Trump's sister, JudgeMaryanne Trump Barry,[14] but Trump instead chose to nominate Gorsuch.[18]
President Trump announced the nomination of Gorsuch on January 31, 2017. The nomination was formally received by the Senate on February 1, 2017, and was subsequently referred to theSenate Judiciary Committee.[9] At the time of his nomination, Gorsuch was described as solidly conservative, but likely to be confirmed without much difficulty.[19][20][21] Richard Primus ofPolitico described Gorsuch as "Scalia 2.0" due to ideological similarities,[22] and a report prepared by Lee Epstein, Andrew Martin, and Kevin Quinn predicted that Gorsuch would be a "reliable conservative" similar to Scalia.[23]
According toThe Washington Post, Trump considered rescinding Gorsuch's nomination, venting angrily to advisers after his Supreme Court pick was critical of the president's escalating attacks on the federal judiciary in a private February meeting with Democratic legislators.[24]
Norm Eisen, Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform in theWhite House andAmbassador to theCzech Republic, endorsed Gorsuch.[25] Eisen was a classmate of both Gorsuch and Obama at Harvard Law.[25]Neal Katyal, who served as ActingSolicitor General of the United States during the Obama Administration and law professor atGeorgetown University Law Center, endorsed Gorsuch for approval to the Supreme Court, and introduced him on the first day of the hearings.[26]
TheNational Rifle Association, theNational Shooting Sports Foundation, theSecond Amendment Foundation and other gun rights groups endorsed Gorsuch,[27][28][29] whileAmericans for Responsible Solutions, theLaw Center to Prevent Gun Violence and other gun control proponents have opposed his nomination.[30][31]House Minority LeaderNancy Pelosi claimed Gorsuch "comes down on the side of felons over gun safety".PolitiFact called her statement misleading and said that Gorsuch's past rulings do not "demonstrate that he thinks more felons should be allowed guns than what is already permitted under the law".[32]
TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union raised concerns about Gorsuch's respect for disability rights.[33] TheSecular Coalition for America,Freedom from Religion Foundation andUnion for Reform Judaism all voiced concerns with Gorsuch's nomination.[34]
TheJudicial Crisis Network enthusiastically rallied behind Gorsuch after running a campaign against Merrick Garland, spending a total of $17 million to these ends.[35]
.jpg)
Gorsuch's nomination was first considered by theSenate Judiciary Committee, which holds hearings on allfederal judicial nominations and decides whether or not to send nominations to the full Senate for a final confirmation vote.[36] In the115th Congress the committee consisted of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats, and was led by RepublicanChuck Grassley. In preparation for the hearing, the committee requested theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) to send all documents they had regarding Gorsuch's work in theGeorge W. Bush administration; and by the time the hearing commenced, the DOJ had sent the committee over 144,000 pages of documents and, according to aWhite House spokesman, more than 220,000 pages of documents altogether.[37] Gorsuch's confirmation hearing started on March 20, 2017, and lasted four days.[9][38]
On the first day of hearings, March 20, senators largely used their opening statements to criticize each other, with Ranking DemocratDianne Feinstein complaining of the "unprecedented treatment" of Judge Merrick Garland, while DemocratMichael Bennet felt "two wrongs don't make a right", with RepublicanTed Cruz insisting President Trump's nomination now carried "super-legitimacy".[39]
Democratic senators repeatedly criticized Gorsuch for his dissent inTransam Trucking v. Administrative Review Bd., colloquially referred to as the "frozen trucker case", where the Tenth CircuitCourt of Appeals ruled in favor of a truck driver who, after waiting hours for relief, had finally abandoned his unheated truck and trailer in dangerously inclement conditions. DemocratDick Durbin told Gorsuch that the cold weather described in the facts of the case was "not as cold as your dissent".[39] Durbin also criticized the accuracy of his opinion in theBurwell v. Hobby Lobby case, where Gorsuch contended that contraception "destroys a fertilized egg," and that he had held theReligious Freedom Restoration Act included protection for corporations, rather than just individuals.[40]
In his own 16-minute opening statement, Gorsuch repeated his belief that a judge who likes all his rulings is "probably a pretty bad judge." He emphasized his decisions were based on "the facts at issue in each particular case." He also noted that his extensive record included many examples where he ruled both for and against disadvantaged groups.[38][39]
.jpg)
On the second day of hearings, March 21, Gorsuch responded to questions by committee members. When Chairman Chuck Grassley asked Gorsuch if he would "have any trouble ruling against the president who appointed you", Gorsuch replied, no, and "that's a softball".[41] Ted Cruz used his time to ask Gorsuch aboutThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, basketball, andmutton busting.[41] When asked by RepublicanLindsey Graham how he would have reacted if during his interview atTrump Tower the President had asked him to vote againstRoe v. Wade, Gorsuch replied "I would have walked out the door".[41]
Democratic senators continued to criticize Gorsuch on his dissent in the truck driver case, with Dianne Feinstein asking him "will you be for the little men" and DemocratAl Franken telling the judge the facts of the case constituted an "absurdity exception" to thePlain Meaning Rule, which Gorsuch relied upon in his dissent.[42] Franken went on to say "I had a career in identifying absurdity" (referring to his former career as a comedian).[41] DemocratPatrick Leahy used his time to criticize Republicans' obstructions of the Garland nomination, disparage the policies of President George W. Bush that Gorsuch had defended at the Justice Department, and to ask Gorsuch how he would rule inWashington v. Trump, a pending case concerning the legality of Trump'sExecutive Order 13769, colloquially referred to as the "Muslim Ban." Gorsuch refused to comment on active litigation and explained that Justice Department lawyers must defend their client, while characterizing Garland as someone whom he admires, "an outstanding judge" and that he always reads Garland's opinions with "special care".[41]
On the third day of hearings, March 22, Gorsuch continued to answer committee members' questions. RepublicanOrrin Hatch asked Gorsuch if he thought his writings reflected "a knee-jerk attitude against common-sense regulations", to which the judge replied "no".[43] DemocratSheldon Whitehouse spent the bulk of his allotted time describing to Gorsuch the negative effects of "Dark money" contributed by unknown donors. He also warned that the Court's 2010Citizens United ruling's elimination of limits for political spending by corporations in elections could result in undue corporate political influence, and asked Gorsuch if would be subject to "capture" by big business, to which he replied "nobody will capture me".[44][45]
During her allotted time, DemocratAmy Klobuchar pressed Gorsuch on what she viewed as his "selectiveoriginalism," observing that Gorsuch, who self-identifies as an originalist, had not consistently interpreted legal texts, including the Constitution, by the original public meaning that they would have had at the time that they became law.[44] Later, when Dianne Feinstein asked him a question on theEqual Protection Clause and tensions between originalism and the later expansion of constitutional protections for women and racial minorities after its original drafting, Gorsuch stated that originalism did not seek "to return us tohorse and buggy days" and that "it matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were racists. Because they were. Or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws to all persons. That's what they wrote."[44]
That same day, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Tenth Circuit in anIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act case Gorsuch had not been involved in, although in 2008 he had written for a unanimous panel applying the same circuit precedent.[45] Still, Senate Minority LeaderCharles Schumer said this demonstrated "a continued, troubling pattern of Judge Gorsuch deciding against everyday Americans, even children who require special assistance at school".[44]
| Gorsuch confirmation hearing witnesses | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date | Name | Role |
| March 20 | Michael Bennet, Senator (D-CO) | Introducer |
| Cory Gardner, Senator (R-CO) | Introducer | |
| Neal Katyal, former actingU.S. Solicitor General (May 2010 – June 2011) | Introducer | |
| March 20 through March 22 | Neil Gorsuch | Nominee |
| March 23 | Nancy Scott Degan, Chair,American Bar AssociationStanding Committee on the Federal Judiciary | Congressional witness |
| Shannon Edwards, Member, American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary | Congressional witness | |
| Deanell Reece Tacha,Pepperdine University School of Law Duane And Kelly Roberts Dean And Professor Of Law,U.S. Court Of Appeals Judge (Retired) | Republican witness | |
| Robert Harlan Henry, President ofOklahoma City University, U.S. Court Of Appeals Judge (Retired) | Republican witness | |
| John L. Kane Jr.,United States federal judge,United States District Court for the District of Colorado | Republican witness | |
| Leah Bressack, former law clerk | Republican witness | |
| Elisa Massimino, President and CEO,Human Rights First | Democratic witness | |
| Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director,Columbia University/Knight First Amendment Institute | Democratic witness | |
| Jeff Perkins | Democratic witness | |
| Guerino J. Calemine, III, General Counsel,Communication Workers of America | Democratic witness | |
| Jeff Lamken, Partner, MoloLamken | Republican witness | |
| Lawrence Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor Of Law,Georgetown University Law Center | Republican witness | |
| Jonathan Turley, J.B. And Maurice C. Shapiro Professor Of Public Interest Law,The George Washington University Law School | Republican witness | |
| Karen Harned, Executive Director,National Federation Of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center | Republican witness | |
| Heather McGhee, President,Demos | Democratic witness | |
| Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Vice President For Program & President-Elect,National Women's Law Center | Democratic witness | |
| Patrick Gallagher, Director,Sierra Club Environmental Law Program | Democratic witness | |
| Eve Hill, Partner, Brown Goldstein Levy | Democratic witness | |
| Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner,U.S. Commission On Civil Rights; Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff | Republican witness | |
| Alice Fisher, Partner,Latham & Watkins | Republican witness | |
| Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel,Becket Fund | Republican witness | |
| Timothy Meyer, former law clerk | Republican witness | |
| Jamil N. Jaffer, former law clerk | Republican witness | |
| Kristen Clarke, President & CEO,Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law | Democratic witness | |
| Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director,Human Rights Campaign | Democratic witness | |
| Amy Hagstrom Miller, President, CEO, & Founder, Whole Woman's Health | Democratic witness | |
| William Marshall, William Rand Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor Of Law,University Of North Carolina | Democratic witness | |
| Sandy Phillips | Democratic witness | |
On April 4,BuzzFeed andPolitico ran articles highlighting similar language occurring in Gorsuch's bookThe Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia and an earlier law review article by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma,Indiana's deputyattorney general. Academic experts contacted byPolitico "differed in their assessment of what Gorsuch did, ranging from calling it a clear impropriety to mere sloppiness".[46][47][48][49]
John Finnis, who supervised Gorsuch's Oxford dissertation at Oxford stated, "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 stated, "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."[49]Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor, thought that Gorsuch had committed "minor plagiarism", that deserved "no more punishment than the embarrassment attendant on its revelation".[50]
On April 3, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed the Gorsuch nomination, sending it to the full Senate for final action by an 11–9[9]party-line vote, with all Republican members voting for him and all Democratic members voting against. The last time the committee's vote to approve a Supreme Court nominee split precisely along party lines was in 2006 on theSamuel Alito nomination.[51][52][53]
.jpg)
Gorsuch needed to win a simple majority vote of the full Senate (51 votes) to be confirmed; however, afilibuster by the opposition would add an additional requirement, a three-fifths supermajority vote in favor ofcloture (60 votes), which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation. At the time, Republicans held 52 seats in the 100-seat Senate, and could also count on (if needed) thetie-breaking vote ofVice PresidentPence, acting in his Constitutional capacity as President of the Senate.[54] After nominating Gorsuch, President Trump called on the Senate to use the "nuclear option" and abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments if its continued existence would prevent Gorsuch's confirmation.[55] The nuclear option wasused in 2013 by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid to abolish filibusters for all presidential appointments except nominations to the Supreme Court.[53]
While some Republicans such asJohn McCain expressed reluctance about abolishing the filibuster for executive appointments, others such asJohn Cornyn argued that the Republican majority should reserve all options necessary to confirm Gorsuch.[54]
During the last day of committee hearings, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would filibuster the nomination.[56] Democratic opposition focused on complaints saying that Scalia's seat should have been filled by President Obama, rather than on Gorsuch himself.[57][58] In addition, Democrats Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris, along withIndependentBernie Sanders each criticized various aspects of Gorsuch's record. Additionally,Jeff Merkley said he would do "anything in his power"—including the power of filibustering—to oppose Gorsuch's nomination.[59]
On April 6, 2017, Democrats launched a filibuster against Gorsuch's nomination. Republicans could not reach a supermajority (60 votes) needed for cloture.[60] In response, they invoked the nuclear option and changed the Senate rules to end filibusters for Supreme Court nominees.[61] After the rules change, a second cloture vote was held; this one, needing only a simple majority of Senators voting, passed, bringing debate to a close.[62][63]
The Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on April 7, 2017, by a vote of 54–45.[9] All Republicans present, along with Democrats Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly, voted to confirm him.[64] Republican Johnny Isakson, who had supported the nomination, was absent for the vote because he was recovering from back surgery.[65]
On April 10, Gorsuch took the prescribed constitutional and judicial (set by federal law) oaths of office, and became the 113th member of the Supreme Court.[67] At age 49, he was the youngest person to join the Court sinceClarence Thomas, at age 43, in 1991. Also, having been alaw clerk forAnthony Kennedy (1993–94), he became the first Supreme Court justice to serve alongside a justice for whom he had previously clerked.[68]
I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law," Mr. Katyal wrote in a New York Times op-ed. "His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence – a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.
Announcement of nominee
Confirmation hearing witness testimony
First presidency of Donald Trump (2017–2021) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
| General |
| ||||||||||
| Events |
| ||||||||||
| Policies |
| ||||||||||
| Protests |
| ||||||||||
| Related |
| ||||||||||
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
