Abstract
Justice Gorsuch has a propensity for unexpected decisions. His opinions in Bostock v. Clayton County, United States v. Vaello Madero, and McGirt v. Oklahoma confounded the legal community at large. Some argue that his Western upbringing played a role. Others argue that his time clerking for Justice Kennedy primed him for unpredictable decisions. These explanations do not get at the core of Justice Gorsuch’s legal reasoning. This article dives into the depths of these opinions to extract his “Enduring” theories of law. I argue that legal scholarship has incorrectly viewed these three decisions as isolated incidents when they are best understood as a collective effort by Justice Gorsuch. By extracting the themes and rules from these opinions, I maintain that he is the most likely conservative Justice on Supreme Court to rule in favor of marginalized people. Further, his steadfast following of his own theories of law will undoubtedly lead to more decisions like the ones discussed here. Justice Gorsuch’s predisposition for astonishing legal experts will continue to happen until they properly put his past decisions into perspective and understand them as a unified group. Blindly ignoring the recognizable pattern will only hinder efforts to make significant legal change, especially for the groups Justice Gorsuch has previously sided with.
Recommended Citation
Justin Burnworth, The Curious Case of Justice Neil Gorsuch, 44 Pace L. Rev. 1 (2023)DOI: https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3528.2081
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol44/iss1/1
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons