Who Is Neil Gorsuch?

By Christa St. George

On January 31, 2017, Neil Gorsuch was nominated by President Trump to fill the vacated seat on the Supreme Court, following the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.The vacant seat on the Supreme Court has been a hotly contested issue for the past year. While President Obama attempted to appoint Chief Judge Garland to this seat prior to leaving office, Senate Republicans steadfastly refused to confirm the nominee or consider his appointment. With the 52 seat majority of Senate Republicans, their efforts created a year-long stalemate over the appointment of the 9th Supreme Court seat—the second longest stalemate since the 1860’s.
 
Political ascriptions in the Supreme Court are currently split 4-4. With his Conservative views, Gorsuch is projected to swing the Court to the right, leaving the swing vote, again, to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The gravity of importance placed upon Gorsuch’s appointment, therefore, cannot be overstated.
 
The 49-year old Judge and Colorado native currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver. Upon his appointment to the Court of Appeals by George W. Bush in 2006, the American Bar Association regarded him as “unanimously well qualified” for the position. Similar to other Justices, Gorsuch has obtained degrees from various Ivy League Schools, including Columbia University, Harvard Law School, and the University of Oxford. He served as a legal clerk for Anthony M. Kennedy, Byron R. White, and Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
 
Despite his general likability and reputation as an approachable judge and distinguished writer, Senate Democrats remain skeptical of his lack of experience as well as failure to provide concise opinions on relevant and/or controversial issues. Critics argue that his rulings in past cases make him likely to rule in favor of right-wing Conservatives, including President Trump and his policies. Those in strong opposition to the nominee’s appointment question his capacity to remain impartial to political ties, including President Trump and the Republican Party’s hardline conservative values.
 
What do we know about his political, social, and economic inclinations as a Judge?
 
Gorsuch, like his potential predecessor, maintains an “originalist” perspective on interpreting the Constitution; i.e. he maintains a strict, “textualized” perspective on law and legality. This predisposition frames Gorsuch’s opinions of the following topics:

• Religious Freedom: He is an ardent enthusiast for religious freedoms. Examination of prior cases demonstrates his consistent support of religious group claims to the First Amendment’s provision of freedom of expression. He backed the Little Sisters of the Poor as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius et al., in which the craft company challenged the Affordable Care Act’s requirement of companies to pay for contraceptive coverage for its employees. His own religious convictions as an Episcopalian Protestant are considered pertinent to his position on religious freedoms.

• Euthanasia: The question of Euthanasia and assisted suicide stands as Gorsuch’s most clearly defined opinion. He published a book in 2006 named The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia that firmly opposed the practice and argued against “death with dignity” laws.

• Abortion: While Gorsuch has not released an official statement regarding Roe v. Wade, reference to his book about assisted suicide leads critics to assume he would not be in favor of the practice of abortion. In his book, Gorsuch writes, “human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” It is also important to note that President Trump released a statement during his campaign that his Supreme Court nominee would oppose the practice. Again, Gorsuch does not make his position on abortion clear, but his self-proclaimed religious convictions, opinion about euthanasia, and relation to Donald Trump lead critics to conclude that his attitude toward abortion is likely conservative.

 

• Marriage Equality: He has not released an official statement regarding this issue and has not dealt with any cases that could be referenced to officially determine his position. 

 

• Capital Punishment: While some are likely to believe he would adopt an anti-death penalty position due to his statement about the “inherent value” of human life, Gorsuch has consistently voted against petitioners pursuing relief from the death penalty. His by-the-book approach to the Constitution will likely make his judgments on Capital Punishment cases similar to Scalia’s.

 

• Marijuana: Gorsuch has made no comment on the state-by-state legality of Marijuana use, but he does acknowledge the difficulty of prosecuting dispensaries under federal law. In Feinberg et. Al. v. IRS, Gorsuch ruled against a Colorado dispensary that sought to withhold information from the IRS due to fear of self-incrimination. Despite this ruling, he released a statement in which he shifted the blame away from the dispensaries and toward the federal government for inefficiently accommodating marijuana legalization in state legislations.

 

• Police Use of Force: In a 2013 case Family of Ryan Wilson v. City of Lafeyette and Taser International, Gorsuch ruled in favor of a police officer’s use of a taser against a man fleeing a marijuana arrest. The 22-year-old Ryan Wilson was stunned in the head and killed upon contact. In his declaration, Gorsuch writes, “[T]he illegal processing and manufacturing of marijuana may not be inherently violent crimes but, outside the medical marijuana context, they were felonies under Colorado law at the time of the incident… And Officer Harris testified, without rebuttal, that he had been trained that people who grow marijuana illegally tend to be armed and ready to use force to protect themselves and their unlawful investments.” This statement has sparked numerous concerns about both Gorsuch’s opinion of Marijuana users as well as the use of force by police officers against the public.

 

• In 2014, Gorsuch ruled on another case in which the use of excessive force by an officer was contested. The Utah school resource officer used a “twist-lock” (a type of restraint maneuver) against a 9-year-old, 67 pound student who had stolen an iPod. Gorsuch and Judge Terrence O’Brien admitted that the use of force was regrettable, but so too was the “disrespectful, obdurate, and combative behavior of that nine-year-old child.”  They ruled in favor of the officer. Again, many have raised concerns regarding Gorsuch’s perception of the use of force, particularly against juvenile offenders.

 

• Criminal Justice: Gorsuch has written extensively on the topic of criminal law in a manner that echoes Scalia’s past rulings. His commitment to textualism makes him critical of using legislative history to criminalize what might otherwise be innocent. In other words, he interprets criminal behavior in terms of what is written in the Constitution. His rulings therefore endorse the Second Amendment’s provision of gun rights.

 

• Environment: While an avid outdoorsman and conservationist, Gorsuch has been criticized for being “unlikely to be seen as a champion of environmental protection.” It is likely that his right-wing approach to the Constitution will aid President Trump’s intention to scrap the Clean Power Plan established under the Obama Administration. Past rulings, however, demonstrate Gorsuch’s support for efforts to limit government regulation over environmental groups. For example, in a 2010 case he decided the Environmental Protection Agency could change its interpretation of an ambiguous regulation without requiring the comment of rule makers. In another case, Gorsuch upheld the renewable energy standards of the State of Colorado when they were being challenged by the coal industry.

 

• Immigration: In the midst of the hotly contested issue surrounding the US immigration policy, it is difficult to determine Gorsuch’s approach to immigration cases. Over the past decade, he has been both sympathetic and tough against immigrant encounters with the legislative system. His severe criticism of executive and federal interpretation of laws, however, gives some critics a glimmer of hope that he will oppose the President’s executive immigration ban. Will he support right-wing conservative positions on immigration, or will he disapprove of the federal regulation over immigration policies?

 
While these are just a few of the strongly disputed issues circulating in the American government and courts, they provide evidence that suggest Neil Gorsuch’s potential rulings as a Supreme Court Judge. Overall, we can expect a textual, strict interpreter of the Constitution. In other words, Gorsuch will likely serve as a similar judge to Scalia. Critics argue that this interpretation is both outdated and in opposition to the social, political, and economic progress of the nation. How will the Judge’s textual interpretation of the Constitution frame the issues listed above, as well as future Supreme Court rulings? Time will tell.