Supreme Court JusticeAmericanJudgeFederal Official

Neil Gorsuch

Neil Gorsuch is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, known for his originalist and textualist philosophy and authoring landmark opinions including Bostock, McGirt, and Dobbs.

1. Overview

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, appointed by President Donald Trump and serving since April 10, 2017. Born on August 29, 1967, in Denver, Colorado, Gorsuch is known for his adherence to originalism in constitutional interpretation and textualism in statutory interpretation, principles that guide his judicial philosophy. He also aligns with natural law jurisprudence. His career includes private legal practice and significant tenure as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where his rulings often foreshadowed his Supreme Court approach, particularly on issues of freedom of religion and administrative law.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Gorsuch has authored notable majority opinions in landmark cases such as Bostock v. Clayton County, which expanded LGBT rights in employment discrimination based on a textualist reading of the Civil Rights Act, and McGirt v. Oklahoma, a significant decision affirming Native American tribal land rights. However, he has also been a key vote in controversial decisions, including authoring the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, and joining dissents in cases that sought to expand protections for LGBTQ+ individuals beyond his textualist interpretations. His judicial approach emphasizes the separation of powers and limits on judicial activism, advocating for judges to interpret rather than make law. Gorsuch has faced scrutiny regarding his past involvement in Bush-era "War on Terror" policies and, more recently, ethical questions concerning financial disclosures related to property sales.

2. Early life and education

Neil Gorsuch's early life and extensive education laid the groundwork for his distinguished legal career, shaping his intellectual framework and judicial philosophy.

2.1. Birth and Family Background

Neil McGill Gorsuch was born on August 29, 1967, in Denver, Colorado, as the eldest of three children to Anne Gorsuch Burford (née McGill; 1942-2004) and David Ronald Gorsuch (1937-2001). He is a fourth-generation Coloradan, with both his maternal grandfather, John McGill, a surgeon, and his paternal grandfather, John Gorsuch, a prominent lawyer in Denver, reflecting a strong professional background in his family. Both of his parents were also attorneys, and they actively encouraged their children to engage in spontaneous debates.

His mother, Anne Burford, was a notable political figure, serving in the Colorado House of Representatives from 1976 to 1980. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed her as the first woman to serve as the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. While his mother held conservative views, his father was a liberal, showcasing a diversity of political perspectives within his family.

2.2. Education

Gorsuch attended Christ the King Roman Catholic School, a private grade school in Denver, where he was influenced by the school's moral lessons and remembered for taking strong stances. At the age of nine, he assisted his mother in her campaign for the Colorado legislature. Following her appointment to the EPA, his family relocated to Bethesda, Maryland. In 1981, he enrolled at Georgetown Preparatory School, a selective Jesuit college-preparatory school, graduating in 1985 as student body president. He was two years junior to future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with whom he later clerked. During his time at Georgetown Prep, Gorsuch was a member of the debate, forensics, and international relations clubs, and also served as a United States Senate page in the early 1980s. He was characterized as an outgoing and extroverted student.

After high school, Gorsuch attended Columbia University, graduating in 1988 with a BA, cum laude, in political science, completing his degree in three years by undertaking a heavier course load. As an undergraduate, he wrote for the Columbia Daily Spectator and co-founded the satirical student publication The Fed in 1986, using it as a conservative alternative to the campus's liberal newspapers, criticizing left-wing politics. He was also a member of the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity and inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa honor society.

Gorsuch then attended Harvard Law School on a Harry S. Truman Scholarship, graduating in 1991 with a JD, cum laude. He was an editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and participated in the Lincoln's Inn Society, the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project, and the Harvard Defenders program. Despite a campus environment he described as "full of ardent liberals," Gorsuch remained a committed conservative, supporting the Gulf War and congressional term limits, yet was generally well-liked by his classmates, including future President Barack Obama. A close friend, Philip C. Berg, noted Gorsuch's sensitive and non-confrontational nature, recalling his support when Berg came out as gay.

In 2004, Gorsuch earned a DPhil in legal philosophy from the University of Oxford, where he was a postgraduate student at University College. His doctoral thesis, supervised by natural law philosopher John Finnis and Canadian legal scholar Timothy Endicott, focused on the morality of assisted suicide and euthanasia. His studies at Oxford were supported by a Marshall Scholarship.

4. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2006-2017)

During his nearly eleven years on the Tenth Circuit, Neil Gorsuch developed a consistent judicial record, characterized by his textualist and originalist interpretations, which would later become hallmarks of his Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Gorsuch as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Gorsuch as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

4.1. Nomination and Confirmation

In January 2006, Philip Anschutz, a former client, recommended Gorsuch's nomination to Colorado's U.S. Senator Wayne Allard and White House Counsel Harriet Miers. On May 10, 2006, President George W. Bush nominated Gorsuch to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filling the vacancy left by Judge David M. Ebel, who had taken senior status. Both Gorsuch and Ebel had previously clerked for Justice Byron White. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him "well qualified" in 2006. On July 20, 2006, the U.S. Senate confirmed Gorsuch by unanimous voice vote. He was the fifth judicial appointment by President Bush to the Tenth Circuit. Upon taking his oath of office at Denver's Byron White United States Courthouse, Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom Gorsuch had clerked, administered the oath.

During his time on the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch gained a reputation as a "feeder judge", with ten of his law clerks going on to clerk for the Supreme Court. One of his former clerks, Jonathan Papik, was appointed as an associate justice of the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2018.

5. Nomination to Supreme Court

Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court filled a contentious vacancy and brought significant political debate over judicial appointments.

President Donald Trump introduces Gorsuch, accompanied by his wife Marie Louise Gorsuch, as his nominee for the Supreme Court at the White House on January 31, 2017.
President Donald Trump introduces Gorsuch, accompanied by his wife Marie Louise Gorsuch, as his nominee for the Supreme Court at the White House on January 31, 2017.

5.1. Nomination Process

During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, along with his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, on a list of 21 judges he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected. After Trump took office in January 2017, Gorsuch was among a shorter list of eight leading contenders to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This vacancy had persisted for over a year after Scalia's death in February 2016, as the Republican-controlled Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, refused to consider President Barack Obama's nominee, Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. McConnell invoked the "Biden Rule" (a stance from 1992 suggesting Supreme Court nominations should not occur in an election year), leaving Garland's nomination to expire in January 2017.

On January 31, 2017, President Trump formally announced his nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. At 49 years old, Gorsuch was the youngest nominee to the Supreme Court since the 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas, who was 43. As a courtesy, Gorsuch's first call after his nomination was reportedly to Merrick Garland, the judge whom Republicans had rejected. Trump officially transmitted his nomination to the Senate on February 1, 2017. The American Bar Association unanimously gave Gorsuch its highest rating of "Well Qualified" to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

5.2. Confirmation Hearings and Vote

Gorsuch's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee began on March 20, 2017. The hearings involved extensive questioning on his judicial philosophy, past rulings, and views on a range of legal issues. On April 3, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination with a party-line vote of 11-9.

On April 6, 2017, Senate Democrats initiated a filibuster (preventing cloture) to block the confirmation vote, citing concerns over Gorsuch's judicial philosophy and the Senate's prior refusal to consider Merrick Garland. In response, Republicans invoked the "nuclear option", a procedural maneuver that lowered the threshold for breaking a Supreme Court nominee filibuster from 60 votes to a simple majority of 51 votes.

During this period, on April 4, reports from BuzzFeed and Politico highlighted similar language in Gorsuch's 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia and an earlier law review article by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, Indiana's deputy attorney general, leading to allegations of plagiarism. Academic experts offered varied assessments, ranging from "clear impropriety" to "mere sloppiness." However, John Finnis, who supervised Gorsuch's Oxford dissertation, defended him, stating the allegation was "entirely without foundation" and that the book was meticulous in citing primary sources. Kuzma herself stated she did "not see an issue here," as the passages were factual, not analytical, framing the legal and medical circumstances of the 1982 "Baby/Infant Doe" case.

On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court by a vote of 54-45. Three Democrats-Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, and Joe Donnelly-joined all Republicans present in supporting his confirmation. Gorsuch received his commission on April 8, 2017, and was officially sworn into office on Monday, April 10, 2017. The constitutional oath of office was administered by the Chief Justice of the United States in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court at 9 a.m., making him the 101st associate justice. Later, at 11 a.m., Justice Anthony Kennedy administered the judicial oath of office in a public ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.

6. U.S. Supreme Court (2017-present)

As an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch has significantly influenced American jurisprudence through his opinions and votes, consistently applying his originalist and textualist philosophy.

6.1. Major Decisions

Justice Gorsuch has been involved in numerous pivotal Supreme Court cases, often aligning with the Court's conservative bloc but occasionally joining more liberal justices due to his textualist interpretations, particularly in areas like Native American law.

6.1.1. First Amendment

Gorsuch has consistently joined majorities in cases related to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, often favoring broad protections for individual expression and religious exercise. He joined the majority in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) and Janus v. AFSCME (2018), both of which held certain forms of compelled speech unconstitutional.

In 2022, Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. This case involved a public high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games. The Court held that the coach's conduct was protected by both the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, and that the school's actions to stop him were not mandated by the Establishment Clause. In 2023, Gorsuch also wrote the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, holding that the Free Speech Clause protected a web designer's right to refuse to create custom wedding websites for same-sex weddings, despite a Colorado law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. This ruling was widely seen as a victory for religious freedom claims.

6.1.2. Second Amendment

Gorsuch has consistently sided with a broad interpretation of gun rights, reflecting his textualist approach to the Second Amendment. He joined Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent from the denial of certiorari in Peruta v. San Diego County (2018), where the Ninth Circuit had upheld California's restrictive concealed carry laws. This dissent signaled his inclination to review and potentially strike down stricter gun control measures.

In 2020, Gorsuch issued a statement regarding the denial of an application for a stay in Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, a D.C. Circuit case challenging the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks. In his statement, Gorsuch critically viewed both the Trump Administration's action to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns and the D.C. Circuit's justification for upholding the ban. He argued that the executive branch's reinterpretation of a criminal statute to expand its scope, rather than Congress amending the law, raised significant constitutional concerns regarding separation of powers and the rule of law. His critique underscored his skepticism toward administrative agencies expanding their authority without clear legislative direction.

6.1.3. LGBT rights

Gorsuch's record on LGBT rights has been complex, highlighted by both landmark protections and controversial dissents. In 2017, in Pavan v. Smith, Gorsuch dissented when the Supreme Court summarily overruled the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision to deny same-sex married parents the right to appear on their child's birth certificate. He, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued that the Court should have fully heard the arguments of the case rather than issuing a summary reversal.

In a landmark 6-3 decision in 2020, Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in the combined cases of Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court ruled that businesses cannot discriminate in employment against LGBTQ+ individuals, holding that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal discrimination "on the basis of sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gorsuch's reasoning was rooted in textualism, arguing that an employer who discriminates against an individual for being homosexual or transgender is doing so "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," thus necessarily involving sex-based discrimination. This decision was a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights, despite Gorsuch's conservative background, and notably, he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's four liberal appointees, while Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented.

Despite the Bostock ruling, Gorsuch has continued to express views seen as less favorable to LGBTQ+ rights in other contexts. In October 2020, Gorsuch agreed with an "apparently unanimous" decision to deny an appeal from Kim Davis, a county clerk who had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, allowing a lower court ruling against her to stand. In June 2021, he joined the unanimous Fulton v. City of Philadelphia decision, which ruled in favor of a Catholic adoption agency denied a contract by Philadelphia for refusing to place children with same-sex couples. Gorsuch and Thomas also joined Justice Alito's concurrence, which argued for reconsidering, and potentially overturning, Employment Division v. Smith, a precedent that limited First Amendment protections for religious practices. Also in 2021, Gorsuch was one of three justices, alongside 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 religious beliefs. The Court ultimately rejected the appeal, leaving the lower court ruling against the florist in place. In November 2021, Gorsuch dissented from the Court's 6-3 decision to reject an appeal from Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic-affiliated hospital that sought to deny a hysterectomy to a transgender patient on religious grounds, a decision that left in place a lower court ruling favoring the patient. 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.

6.1.4. American Indian law & relations

Justice Gorsuch is widely recognized as an authority on American Indian law, and during his tenure on the Supreme Court, he has frequently sided with tribal rights and sovereignty, often joining the Court's liberal justices. His appointment to the Court even received support from multiple tribes and Native American organizations due to his favorable rulings as a Tenth Circuit judge.

In March 2019, Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices in a 5-4 majority in Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., which struck down a Washington state tax on transporting gasoline, favoring the Yakama Nation based on an 1855 treaty. In his concurrence, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gorsuch emphasized holding the government to its word on promises made in treaties, stating: "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."

In May 2019, Gorsuch again joined the four more liberal justices in Herrera v. Wyoming, a 5-4 decision that held that hunting rights granted to the Crow people by an 1868 treaty were not extinguished by Wyoming's 1890 statehood. This further affirmed his commitment to upholding treaty obligations.

A significant landmark decision came in July 2020 with McGirt v. Oklahoma, where Gorsuch again joined the liberal justices to form a 5-4 majority. His majority opinion found that a large portion of eastern Oklahoma remains under the jurisdiction of the "Five Civilized Tribes" for purposes of federal criminal law, as their reservation status was never dissolved by Congress. 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." This decision reshaped criminal justice jurisdiction in Oklahoma and affirmed the sovereignty of tribal nations.

However, the implications of McGirt were later reviewed in the June 2022 case Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. While Oklahoma initially sought to overturn McGirt, the Court only agreed to hear issues related to its impacts, specifically whether non-Natives who committed crimes against Natives on Native American territory fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of tribal courts. The 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, expanded the power of states to prosecute crimes on reservations, granting concurrent jurisdiction to tribal, federal, and state governments over such crimes. Gorsuch sharply criticized this decision in his dissent, stating, "Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts," viewing it as a significant setback for tribal sovereignty.

On June 15, 2022, Gorsuch, alongside Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices, ruled in favor of the Native American Tribes of Texas in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas. This case centered on whether Texas could control and regulate gambling on Texan Native American reservations. The ruling affirmed that tribes could regulate electronic bingo games on their land, as long as the state did not outright prohibit the game. Gorsuch, writing the opinion, clarified that while the Tribe could not offer gaming on "whatever terms it wishes," the state government could not impose regulations if the game was not explicitly prohibited.

6.1.5. Abortion

Gorsuch's stance on abortion rights has consistently aligned with the anti-abortion movement, playing a pivotal role in shifting the Court's jurisprudence on the issue. In December 2018, Gorsuch dissented when the Court chose not to hear cases brought by Louisiana and Kansas aiming to deny Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. He, alongside Justice Alito, joined Justice Thomas's dissent, arguing that the Court should have heard the case.

In February 2019, Gorsuch sided with three other conservative justices in rejecting a stay that would have temporarily blocked a Louisiana law restricting abortion, which required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges in a hospital. Chief Justice John Roberts notably joined the liberal justices in a 5-4 decision to block the law temporarily. In June 2020, the Supreme Court ultimately struck down Louisiana's abortion restriction in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo by a 5-4 vote, with Gorsuch among the four dissenters.

In September 2021, Gorsuch was part of the 5-4 majority that declined a petition to block the Texas Heartbeat Act, a Texas law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. He was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

The most impactful of Gorsuch's abortion-related rulings came in June 2022, when he was one of the five justices in the majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. This landmark decision ruled that there is no constitutional right to abortion, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Gorsuch's support for this outcome reflected his strict originalism, arguing that the Constitution does not implicitly protect a right to abortion and that the issue should be returned to the states for legislative determination. This ruling had a profound and immediate impact on abortion access across the United States, significantly curtailing reproductive rights previously recognized under federal law.

6.1.6. Administrative Law Interpretation (Chevron deference)

Justice Gorsuch's skepticism toward administrative deference doctrines, particularly Chevron deference, remained a consistent theme in his Supreme Court jurisprudence, building on his views from the Tenth Circuit. He advocates for courts to interpret statutes based on their plain text and original meaning, rather than deferring to federal agencies' interpretations, which he views as an overreach of executive power and an "abdication of judicial duty." This approach emphasizes judicial independence and strict adherence to the separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary, not administrative agencies, has the final say on statutory meaning. His views have significant implications for the regulatory state, advocating for greater judicial oversight of agency actions and a more limited role for bureaucratic power.

6.1.7. Criminal Law and Procedure

Gorsuch has contributed to criminal justice jurisprudence, often emphasizing textual clarity and due process protections, sometimes aligning with liberal justices on issues of statutory interpretation. A significant impact of his textualist approach was seen when the Supreme Court, in Rehaif v. United States (2019), overruled the Tenth Circuit's decision in United States v. Games-Perez (2012). In Rehaif, the Court held that in a prosecution for illegal gun possession by a felon, the government must prove not only that the defendant possessed a firearm but also that they knew they belonged to the category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms. Gorsuch, who had previously written a concurring opinion in Games-Perez arguing that the Tenth Circuit precedent was wrongly decided on the mens rea element, joined the majority in Rehaif, demonstrating his commitment to a strict reading of criminal statutes.

6.1.8. COVID-19 restrictions

Gorsuch has been a prominent voice in cases challenging government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly concerning religious liberties and civil liberties during public health mandates. On November 26, 2020, Gorsuch joined the majority opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, which struck down COVID-19 restrictions imposed by the state of New York on houses of worship. The Court found that these restrictions disproportionately targeted religious institutions compared to other essential businesses.

On May 18, 2023, Gorsuch issued a powerful statement regarding the Court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by several states aimed at continuing Title 42 expulsions of immigrants, a policy initially implemented to prevent the introduction of COVID-19 cases. In his statement, Gorsuch sharply criticized many government restrictions imposed since the pandemic's onset, stating, "Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country." This statement underscored his deep concern for individual freedoms in the face of governmental emergency powers.

6.1.9. Banking regulation

Gorsuch authored his first majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ___ (2017). In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled against the borrowers, holding that Santander was not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in this specific instance. The Court reasoned that because Santander had purchased the original defaulted car loans from CitiFinancial, it became the owner of those debts, not merely an agent collecting debts for another entity. At the time the FDCPA was enacted, it regulated institutions collecting other companies' debts but did not address businesses collecting their own debts. Gorsuch's opinion emphasized a strict textual reading of the FDCPA, finding that Santander's role as a debt owner rather than a third-party collector meant it did not fall under the statutory definition of "debt collector."

6.1.10. Vagueness doctrine

Justice Gorsuch has consistently applied the vagueness doctrine in statutory interpretation, often aligning with more liberal justices to strike down laws that fail to provide clear notice of prohibited conduct. In Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the Ninth Circuit's decision that a "residual clause" in the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutionally vague. Gorsuch joined Justices Elena Kagan, Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor in the opinion and wrote a separate concurrence that reiterated the importance of the vagueness doctrine, drawing parallels to Justice Scalia's 2015 opinion in Johnson.

In United States v. Davis (2019), Gorsuch authored the Opinion of the Court, striking down the residual clause of the Hobbs Act based on the same rationale used in Dimaya. These decisions highlight his commitment to ensuring that criminal statutes provide sufficient clarity and precision, consistent with due process principles.

8. Personal life

Neil Gorsuch's personal life reflects a blend of family devotion, religious adherence, and a strong connection to the outdoors.

Gorsuch and family with Donald Trump, Anthony Kennedy, and Mike Pence prior to his swearing-in.
Gorsuch and family with Donald Trump, Anthony Kennedy, and Mike Pence prior to his swearing-in.

8.1. Family and Marriage

Gorsuch is married to Marie Louise Gorsuch, a British citizen whom he met while studying at Oxford University. They married in 1996 at St. Nicholas' Anglican Church in Henley-on-Thames, England. The couple resides in Boulder, Colorado, and has two daughters. Their family life includes an appreciation for outdoor activities.

8.2. Religion

Gorsuch was raised Catholic, attending weekly Mass with his two siblings. His wife, Louise, was raised in the Church of England. After their marriage and return to the United States, the couple joined Holy Comforter, an Episcopal parish in Vienna, Virginia, where Gorsuch volunteered as an usher and they attended weekly services. Later, the Gorsuch family attended St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, which is known as a liberal church with a longstanding open-door policy for the LGBT community. During his 2017 confirmation hearing, Gorsuch affirmed, "I attend an Episcopal church in Boulder with my family, senator." While he was raised Catholic, his public religious affiliation has been with the Episcopal Church since his return to the U.S.

8.3. Hobbies and Leisure Activities

Gorsuch is known for his love of the outdoors and various leisure activities. He is an avid fly fishing enthusiast and has gone fly fishing with Justice Antonin Scalia on at least one occasion. Beyond fishing, he enjoys raising animals, including horses, chickens, and goats. He also frequently organizes ski trips with colleagues and friends, reflecting his connection to nature and a more traditional, active lifestyle.

8.4. Ethics controversy

Justice Gorsuch has faced ethical questions related to his financial dealings, particularly concerning the sale of a property. In 2017, around the time of his Supreme Court nomination and confirmation, Gorsuch sold a timeshare property he co-owned outside Granby, Colorado, for 1.80 M USD. The property was sold to Brian Duffy, the CEO of the prominent law firm Greenberg Traurig, which frequently litigates cases before the Supreme Court.

A significant point of controversy arose because Gorsuch did not disclose the purchaser's identity on his federal financial disclosure forms, reporting only a profit of between 250.00 K USD and 500.00 K USD. The property had been listed for sale for several years without success, but it went under contract just one week after Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court. Since 2017, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the Supreme Court. Critics argue that the failure to disclose the buyer's identity raises concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest, given the buyer's position as head of a firm with business before the Court. This incident contributes to broader discussions regarding ethics reforms and transparency for Supreme Court justices.

Gorsuch has been active in several professional associations throughout his legal career, including the American Bar Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, Phi Beta Kappa, the Republican National Lawyers Association, and the New York, Colorado, and District of Columbia Bar Associations. In May 2019, it was announced that Gorsuch would become the new chairman of the board of the National Constitution Center, succeeding former Vice President Joe Biden.

9. Selected works

Neil Gorsuch has authored several significant publications, including books, academic articles, and speeches, which collectively provide substantial insight into his legal thought and public commentary.

9.1. Books

  • Gorsuch, Neil McGill (2004). The right to receive assistance in suicide and euthanasia, with particular reference to the law of the United States. University of Oxford (DPhil thesis).
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2009). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2019). A Republic, If You Can Keep It. New York: Crown Forum.
  • Gorsuch, Neil; Nitze, Janie (2024). Over Ruled: The Human Cost of Too Much Law. New York: Harper.

9.2. Articles

  • Gorsuch, Neil; Guzman, Michael (1991). "Will the Gentlemen Please Yield? A Defense of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations". Hofstra Law Review. 20: 341-385.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2000). "The Right to Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia". Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 23 (2): 599-710.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2004). "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". Wisconsin Law Review. 2004: 1347-2424.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2007). "A Reply to Raymond Tallis on the Legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia". Journal of Legal Medicine. 28 (3): 327-332.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2014). "Law's Irony (Thirteenth Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture)". Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 37 (3): 743-756.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2016). "Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of Justice Scalia (2016 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture)". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 66 (4): 905-920.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2016). "Access to Affordable Justice: A Challenge to the Bench, Bar, and Academy". Judicature. 100 (3): 46-55.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (2018). "In Tribute: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy". Harvard Law Review. 132: 3-5.

Other notable articles and essays include:

  • Gorsuch, Neil (November 4, 1992). "Rule of Law: The Constitutional Case for Term Limits". The Wall Street Journal. p. A15.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (May 4, 2002). "Justice White and judicial excellence". United Press International.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (March 18, 2004). "Letter to the Editor: Nonpartisan Fee Awards". The Washington Post. p. A30.
  • Gorsuch, Neil; Matey, Paul (January 31, 2005). "No Loss, No Gain". Legal Times.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (February 7, 2005). "Liberals'N'Lawsuits". National Review Online.
  • Gorsuch, Neil; Matey, Paul (2005). "Settlements in Securities Fraud Class Actions: Improving Investor Protections". Critical Legal Issues Working Paper Series. 128.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (May 18, 2007). "The assisted suicide debate". The Times Literary Supplement.
  • 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.
  • Gorsuch, Neil; Coats, Nathan; Dunn, Stephanie; Myhre, Blain; Witt, Jesse (2013). "Effective Brief Writing". Appellate Practice Update 2013.
  • Gorsuch, Neil (September 5, 2019). "Disregarding the Separation of Powers Has Real-Life Consequences". National Review.

9.3. Speeches

  • Gorsuch, Neil (September 3, 2016). "Legacy of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia" (video 59:59 mins). Tenth Circuit Court Bench & Bar Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado: C-Span.
  • "Law's Irony lecture" as given at the Federalist Society (video 29 min.). YouTube.

10. Evaluation and Impact

Neil Gorsuch's tenure as an Associate Justice has solidified his reputation as a formidable conservative jurist, drawing both fervent praise for his intellectual rigor and significant criticism for the societal implications of his rulings, particularly on sensitive social issues and the balance of power.

10.1. Positive Assessments

Supporters and legal scholars who align with Gorsuch's judicial philosophy commend his unwavering commitment to originalism and textualism. They laud his intellectual honesty and rigor in interpreting the Constitution and statutes based on their plain language and original public meaning, rather than perceived legislative intent or policy consequences. This approach is seen by proponents as a crucial safeguard against judicial activism and an essential method for preserving the separation of powers. His contributions to Native American law, where his textualist approach has frequently led to decisions affirming tribal rights and treaty obligations (as seen in McGirt v. Oklahoma), have garnered bipartisan praise, showcasing instances where his philosophy has yielded outcomes favored by tribal communities and liberal legal commentators alike. His clear writing and articulate reasoning are also often cited as strengths.

10.2. Criticisms and Controversies

Gorsuch has faced substantial criticism, particularly from legal academics, civil rights advocates, and progressive groups, concerning the impact of his judicial decisions on social issues and individual rights. His conservative interpretations have been perceived as undermining established precedents and limiting protections, particularly in areas such as abortion and LGBT rights. While his textualist approach led to the landmark Bostock v. Clayton County decision, critics point to his dissents in other LGBTQ+ cases, such as Pavan v. Smith and his votes in cases involving religious exemptions (e.g., Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and the florist case), as indicative of a broader pattern of prioritizing religious freedom claims over anti-discrimination protections.

The most significant criticism revolves around his majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. This ruling has been widely criticized for stripping away a long-established constitutional right and significantly curtailing reproductive freedom, viewed by many as a regressive step for human rights and bodily autonomy. His philosophical opposition to assisted suicide, rooted in a belief in the inherent value of human life, is also a point of contention for those advocating for individual choice in end-of-life decisions.

Furthermore, Gorsuch's involvement in defending controversial Bush-era "War on Terror" policies during his time at the Department of Justice, including his role in cases involving extraordinary rendition and resistance to disclosing Abu Ghraib photographs, has drawn retrospective scrutiny regarding his stance on executive power and civil liberties. More recently, ethical questions surrounding his financial disclosures, particularly the sale of a property to a prominent law firm CEO without disclosing the buyer's identity, have raised concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest within the judiciary, further contributing to public debate about judicial ethics on the Supreme Court.