Neil Gorsuch

The neutral encyclopedia of notable people
Neil Gorsuch
BornNeil McGill Gorsuch
29 8, 1967
BirthplaceDenver, Colorado, U.S.
NationalityAmerican
OccupationJurist
TitleAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Known forTextualism, originalism, opinions in Bostock v. Clayton County, McGirt v. Oklahoma, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
EducationColumbia University (BA)
Harvard Law School (JD)
University of Oxford (DPhil)
Children2
AwardsMarshall Scholarship

Neil McGill Gorsuch (born August 29, 1967) is an American jurist serving as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, and confirmed by the United States Senate shortly thereafter, Gorsuch has served on the nation's highest court since April 10, 2017.[1] Born and raised in Denver, Colorado, Gorsuch built an extensive legal career that took him from elite academic institutions to prominent clerkships, private practice, the United States Department of Justice, and the federal appellate bench before his elevation to the Supreme Court. A proponent of textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation, he succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia and became the first Supreme Court justice to serve alongside a justice for whom he had once clerked — Anthony Kennedy.[2] During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has authored majority opinions in several landmark cases, including Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) concerning LGBT rights, McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) on Indian law, and Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) on the requirement of unanimous jury verdicts.[3]

Early Life

Neil McGill Gorsuch was born on August 29, 1967, in Denver, Colorado.[2] He grew up in a family with deep connections to law and public service. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, served as the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1983, becoming the first woman to hold that position.[3] Her tenure at the EPA was marked by considerable controversy, including conflicts with Congress over the enforcement of environmental regulations and the handling of the Superfund program, which ultimately led to her resignation.[3]

Gorsuch spent much of his childhood in Denver before the family relocated to the Washington, D.C., area when his mother assumed her role at the EPA. This move placed the young Gorsuch in close proximity to the workings of the federal government during his formative years. He attended Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit college preparatory school in North Bethesda, Maryland, where he received a rigorous education in the liberal arts and Catholic intellectual tradition.[4]

The influence of his family background — particularly his mother's high-profile and turbulent experience in federal government — has been the subject of considerable analysis by journalists and legal commentators seeking to understand Gorsuch's own views on executive power, administrative agencies, and the proper scope of government regulation. While Gorsuch himself has rarely commented publicly on the direct influence of his mother's career on his legal philosophy, observers have noted that his skepticism toward expansive administrative power may have roots in his early exposure to the controversies surrounding the EPA during the Reagan administration.[5]

Education

Gorsuch pursued his undergraduate studies at Columbia University in New York City, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree. During his time at Columbia, he became an established writer, contributing to campus publications and developing the analytical and rhetorical skills that would later characterize his judicial writing.[2]

Following his undergraduate education, Gorsuch enrolled at Harvard Law School, where he earned his Juris Doctor degree. At Harvard, he was a contemporary of future President Barack Obama, though the two moved in different circles.[3]

After completing his legal studies at Harvard, Gorsuch pursued advanced academic work at the University of Oxford in England as a Marshall Scholar, one of the most prestigious academic awards available to American students for study in the United Kingdom. At Oxford, he undertook doctoral research under the supervision of John Finnis, a prominent legal philosopher and natural law theorist. Gorsuch's doctoral thesis examined the morality of assisted suicide and euthanasia, arguing against the legal permissibility of these practices. He was awarded his Doctor of Philosophy in jurisprudence (DPhil) from Oxford in 2004.[6] His doctoral work was later expanded and published as a book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, contributing to the broader legal and ethical debate on end-of-life issues.[6]

Career

Clerkships

Upon completing his law degree at Harvard, Gorsuch embarked on a series of clerkships that placed him under the tutelage of some of the most influential jurists in the American federal judiciary. He first served as a law clerk for Judge David B. Sentelle on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, one of the most prominent appellate courts in the country, often considered second in importance only to the Supreme Court itself.[2]

Gorsuch subsequently clerked at the Supreme Court of the United States, serving first under Justice Byron White, a fellow Coloradan who had been appointed to the Court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. After White's retirement, Gorsuch continued his Supreme Court clerkship under Justice Anthony Kennedy.[2] These clerkships provided Gorsuch with intimate exposure to the workings of the nation's highest court and the jurisprudential philosophies of two justices with differing approaches to the law. His later appointment to the Supreme Court made him the first justice in the Court's history to serve alongside a justice for whom he had previously clerked, as Kennedy remained on the bench until his retirement in 2018.[1]

Private Practice

From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch practiced law with the Washington, D.C.-based firm of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, a boutique litigation firm known for its appellate and Supreme Court practice.[7] During his decade in private practice, Gorsuch handled a range of complex litigation matters, honing the skills in legal analysis and written advocacy that would later define his career on the bench. The firm's focus on appellate litigation provided Gorsuch with regular opportunities to argue before federal courts of appeals and to engage with the types of legal questions — statutory interpretation, constitutional law, and administrative law — that would become central to his judicial work.[7]

Department of Justice

In 2005, Gorsuch left private practice to join the United States Department of Justice, where he served as the Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General, the top deputy to the Associate Attorney General of the United States.[8] In this capacity, Gorsuch was involved in a range of legal and policy matters during the administration of President George W. Bush. His time at the Department of Justice coincided with significant national debates over executive power, national security law, and the treatment of detainees in the War on Terror.

Reporting during his Supreme Court nomination process examined Gorsuch's involvement in Bush-era legal debates, including discussions related to Guantanamo Bay detainee policies and the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.[9] Documents and emails from his tenure at the Justice Department revealed that Gorsuch participated in discussions about the administration's legal positions on these matters, though the precise nature and extent of his role became a subject of scrutiny during his Senate confirmation hearings.[9][8]

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

President George W. Bush nominated Gorsuch to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 10, 2006, to fill the seat vacated by Judge David M. Ebel, who had taken senior status that same year.[10] The Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, covers federal appeals arising from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as portions of the Yellowstone National Park that extend into Montana and Idaho.

Gorsuch's nomination received a "unanimously well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest rating the committee awards.[11] He was confirmed by the United States Senate by voice vote on July 20, 2006, and received his judicial commission on August 8, 2006.[12]

During his decade on the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch developed a reputation as a clear, engaging writer whose opinions often drew upon historical sources and first principles. His judicial philosophy emphasized textualism — the interpretation of statutes based on their plain text rather than legislative history or perceived legislative intent — and originalism — the interpretation of the Constitution according to the original public meaning of its provisions at the time of their adoption.[13]

One area of particular attention during Gorsuch's Tenth Circuit tenure was his approach to cases involving religious liberty. Gorsuch authored or joined several opinions that took an expansive view of religious freedom protections under both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His handling of these cases, including his concurrence in the Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case at the circuit level before it reached the Supreme Court, attracted attention from both supporters and critics.[14] Commentators noted that Gorsuch's approach to religious liberty cases tended to favor broad protections for religious exercise, raising questions about how he would handle the balance between religious freedom claims and other civil rights on the Supreme Court.[15][16]

Gorsuch also demonstrated a notable skepticism toward the Chevron deference doctrine, which required courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In a 2016 concurrence in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch called into question the foundations of Chevron deference, arguing that it improperly transferred interpretive authority from the judiciary to the executive branch. This opinion was widely discussed in legal circles and was seen as a signal of Gorsuch's views on the proper scope of administrative power.[13]

Supreme Court Nomination and Confirmation

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, the Supreme Court operated with eight justices for more than a year. President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy in March 2016, but the Republican-controlled Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declined to hold hearings or a vote on the nomination, arguing that the vacancy should be filled by the next president.

After winning the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on January 31, 2017.[3] Trump had placed Gorsuch on his publicly released list of potential Supreme Court nominees during the campaign, a move that was seen as helping to consolidate conservative support for his candidacy. Gorsuch was one of three judges on Trump's shortlist who received significant public attention.[4]

The Senate confirmation process was contentious. Gorsuch's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee covered a wide range of topics, including his judicial philosophy, his time at the Department of Justice, and his views on precedent and specific areas of law.[5] Democrats, still angered by the Senate's refusal to consider the Garland nomination, mounted significant opposition. When it became clear that Gorsuch's nomination would not receive the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, Senate Republicans invoked the so-called "nuclear option," changing the Senate's rules to allow Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

Gorsuch was confirmed on April 7, 2017, by a vote of 54 to 45, largely along party lines.[1] He took his judicial oath on April 10, 2017, becoming the 113th justice to serve on the Supreme Court.[1]

Supreme Court Tenure

On the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has continued to apply the textualist and originalist principles that characterized his work on the Tenth Circuit. He has emerged as one of the Court's most distinctive writers, known for opinions that combine rigorous textual analysis with accessible prose and historical references.[13]

One of Gorsuch's most significant majority opinions came in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), in which the Court held, 6–3, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Gorsuch's opinion applied textualist reasoning to conclude that discrimination against an individual for being homosexual or transgender necessarily involves discrimination "because of sex," which Title VII prohibits. The decision was viewed as a landmark ruling for LGBT rights in the United States and was notable for the fact that it was authored by a justice appointed by a conservative president, applying the conservative interpretive methodology of textualism to reach a result favored by progressive advocates.[1]

In McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), Gorsuch authored the 5–4 majority opinion holding that a large portion of eastern Oklahoma remained an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law, because Congress had never explicitly disestablished the reservation of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The decision had profound implications for criminal jurisdiction and tribal sovereignty in Oklahoma and represented one of the most significant Indian law decisions in decades.[1]

Gorsuch also wrote the majority opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious criminal offense, and that this requirement applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned a prior precedent that had allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal cases.[1]

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion holding that a public school football coach's post-game prayers on the field were protected by the Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The decision was seen as a significant expansion of religious liberty protections in the public employment context and generated substantial commentary about the boundaries between government endorsement of religion and individual religious expression.[15]

Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch has been identified as an advocate of natural law jurisprudence, a philosophical approach that holds that law should be grounded in moral principles discoverable through reason. This philosophical orientation, which has roots in Gorsuch's doctoral work under John Finnis at Oxford, has informed his approach to a range of legal questions.[6]

In February 2026, Gorsuch attracted significant attention for his role in a Supreme Court decision addressing President Trump's tariff policies. The Court struck down the tariffs, but the justices were divided in their reasoning. Gorsuch authored a notable concurrence in which he criticized what he characterized as inconsistency among his colleagues in the application of legal doctrine, particularly regarding the scope of executive power and the nondelegation doctrine.[17] His concurrence drew commentary from across the political spectrum, with some analysts praising its principled consistency and others suggesting that his reasoning could have far-reaching implications for future cases involving congressional delegation of authority to the executive branch.[18][19]

In a separate February 2026 case, the Supreme Court ruled in a divided decision that the United States Postal Service could not be sued by individuals even when mail was intentionally not delivered. Gorsuch's stance in this case was part of the broader ongoing debate among the justices about sovereign immunity and the rights of individuals to seek redress against government agencies.[20]

Personal Life

Gorsuch married Louise Gorsuch, and the couple has two children.[2] The family has resided in the state of Colorado, reflecting Gorsuch's deep ties to his home state, where he was born, raised, and later served on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals based in Denver.[12]

Gorsuch is a member of the Episcopal Church, having been raised Catholic and later attending Episcopal services with his wife. His religious faith has been a subject of public interest given the prominence of religious liberty cases on the Supreme Court's docket and Gorsuch's own scholarly work on the morality of end-of-life issues.[2]

Outside the law, Gorsuch is known for his interest in outdoor activities, including skiing, fly-fishing, and horseback riding, pursuits associated with his Colorado upbringing. He has spoken and written about the importance of the natural landscapes of the American West.[3]

Recognition

Gorsuch's nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court represented the culmination of a distinguished legal career that had been recognized at every stage. As an undergraduate at Columbia, he distinguished himself as a writer. His selection as a Marshall Scholar for study at Oxford was among the most competitive academic honors available to American students, and his doctoral work under John Finnis contributed to the academic literature on law and morality.[6]

Prior to his appointment to the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch received a "unanimously well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible rating, reflecting the committee's assessment of his integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.[11]

His judicial opinions on both the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court have been the subject of extensive analysis in law reviews, legal journals, and the popular press. His majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County was described as one of the most significant civil rights rulings in a generation, while his opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma reshaped federal Indian law in ways that continue to reverberate through the legal system.[1]

Gorsuch's 2019 book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It, presented his views on the role of the judiciary, the importance of civic engagement, and the principles underlying the American constitutional system. The book received attention both as a statement of judicial philosophy and as a rare example of a sitting Supreme Court justice publishing a work aimed at a general audience.

In February 2026, his concurrence in the tariff case was singled out by multiple commentators — both supportive and critical — as a significant judicial statement on the separation of powers and the limits of executive authority.[17][19]

Legacy

As a sitting justice, Gorsuch's ultimate legacy remains to be determined, but several aspects of his jurisprudence have already had a substantial impact on American law. His commitment to textualism and originalism has placed him firmly in the tradition of Justice Scalia, whose seat he filled, while his willingness to follow textualist reasoning to conclusions that cross ideological expectations — as in Bostock v. Clayton County — has distinguished him from justices whose interpretive methods more closely track partisan outcomes.[13]

Gorsuch's skepticism toward administrative agency power, particularly his critique of Chevron deference, anticipated a broader shift on the Supreme Court toward reining in the authority of federal agencies to interpret the statutes they administer. The Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron, reflected the approach Gorsuch had championed since his time on the Tenth Circuit. This development has been characterized as one of the most consequential changes in administrative law in decades, with implications for virtually every area of federal regulation.[13]

His opinions on tribal sovereignty, particularly in McGirt v. Oklahoma, have reshaped the relationship between state and federal authority in Oklahoma and have prompted broader reconsideration of the legal status of Indian reservations across the United States. His approach to religious liberty cases has contributed to a significant expansion of constitutional protections for religious exercise, a trend that has generated both praise from religious liberty advocates and concern from those who worry about the implications for the separation of church and state.[14][15]

Gorsuch's concurring opinions, particularly those addressing the nondelegation doctrine and the separation of powers, have articulated a vision of constitutionally limited government that may influence future cases involving the allocation of authority among the branches of the federal government.[17][18] His February 2026 concurrence in the tariff case underscored his consistent position that Congress should not be permitted to delegate broad lawmaking authority to the executive branch without clear and specific guidelines, a stance that has placed him at the center of ongoing debates about the structure of American governance.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 FlegenheimerMattMatt"Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court".The New York Times.April 7, 2017.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 "Here's What We Know About Neil Gorsuch".NPR.February 5, 2017.https://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/heres-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 "Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Nominee".The New York Times.January 31, 2017.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee.html.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 "3 Judges Trump May Nominate for the Supreme Court".NPR.January 24, 2017.https://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511493397/3-judges-trump-may-nominate-for-the-supreme-court.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 "Neil Gorsuch's Record".The New York Times.March 14, 2017.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 "The right to receive assistance in suicide and euthanasia, with particular reference to the law of the United States".Oxford University Research Archive.https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:688e5b8c-bb06-4d86-abe0-440a7666ffc1.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "Three Things to Know About Neil Gorsuch, SCOTUS Front-Runner".National Law Journal.http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202777522924/Three-Things-to-Know-About-Neil-Gorsuch-SCOTUS-FrontRunner.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 "Neil Gorsuch's Role in Bush-Era Legal Debates".The New York Times.March 18, 2017.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-bush-era.html.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 "Neil Gorsuch and the Guantánamo Debate".The New York Times.March 15, 2017.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-torture-guantanamo-bay.html.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  10. ↑ "PN1565 — Neil M. Gorsuch — The Judiciary, 109th Congress".United States Congress.https://www.congress.gov/nomination/109th-congress/1565.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 "Ratings of Article III and Article IV Judicial Nominees, 109th Congress".American Bar Association.http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/federal_judiciary/ratings109.authcheckdam.pdf.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 "Gorsuch Confirmed for 10th Circuit".The Denver Post.July 20, 2006.http://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/20/gorsuch-confirmed-for-10th-circuit.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 "Neil Gorsuch: The Heir to Scalia's Textualism and Originalism".National Review.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 "Gorsuch's Selective View of Religious Freedom".The Atlantic.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/gorsuchs-selective-view-of-religious-freedom/520104.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 "Here Are the Top Ten Church-State Stories from 2017".Americans United for Separation of Church and State.https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/here-are-the-top-ten-church-state-stories-from-2017.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  16. ↑ "Religious Freedom or Religious Preference? Neil Gorsuch Will Decide Next Week".Above the Law.https://abovethelaw.com/2017/04/religious-freedom-or-religious-preference-neil-gorsuch-will-decide-next-week.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 "Gorsuch takes aim at fellow Supreme Court justices in tariff decision".The Hill.2026-02-23.https://thehill.com/homenews/5751497-gorsuch-criticizes-fellow-justices/.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 "The Supreme Court's Complicated Takedown of Trump's Tariffs".The New Yorker.2026-02-23.https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-supreme-courts-complicated-takedown-of-trumps-tariffs.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 "Finley: Gorsuch opinion is pure genius".The Detroit News.2026-02-21.https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2026/02/21/finley-gorsuch-opinion-is-pure-genius/88802995007/.Retrieved 2026-02-24.
  20. ↑ "Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can't be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered".Local10.com.2026-02-24.https://www.local10.com/news/politics/2026/02/24/supreme-court-rules-the-postal-service-cant-be-sued-even-when-mail-is-intentionally-not-delivered/.Retrieved 2026-02-24.

Retrieved from "https://biography.wiki/index.php?title=Neil_Gorsuch&oldid=2282"