Neil Gorsuch

Gorsuch served as a law clerk for Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991 to 1992. After spending a year at Oxford as a Marshall Scholar, Gorsuch clerked for Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994.[23][30][37] His work with White occurred right after White retired from the Supreme Court; therefore, Gorsuch assisted White with his work on the Tenth Circuit, where White sat by designation.[23] Gorsuch was part of a group of five law clerks assigned that year that included Brett Kavanaugh, who described Gorsuch at the time, saying: "He fit into the place very easily. He's just an easy guy to get along with. He doesn't have sharp elbows. We had a wide range of views, but we all really got along well."[38]

Instead of joining an established law firm, Gorsuch decided to join the two-year-old boutique firm Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel (now Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick), where he focused on trial work.[18] After winning his first trial as lead attorney, a jury member told Gorsuch he was like Perry Mason.[18] He was an associate in the Washington, D.C., law firm from 1995 to 1997 and a partner from 1998 to 2005.[23][39] Gorsuch's clients included Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz.[40] At Kellogg Huber, Gorsuch focused on commercial matters, including contracts, antitrust, RICO, and securities fraud.[23]

In 2002, Gorsuch wrote an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, writing, "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.[41]

In 2005, at Kellogg Huber, Gorsuch wrote a brief denouncing class action lawsuits by attorneys on behalf of shareholders. In the case of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, Gorsuch opined, "The free ride to fast riches enjoyed by securities class action attorneys in recent years appeared to hit a speed bump" and "the problem is that securities fraud litigation imposes an enormous toll on the economy, affecting virtually every public corporation in America at one time or another and costing businesses billions of dollars in settlements every year".[39]

Gorsuch served as Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General, Robert McCallum, at the United States Department of Justice from 2005 until 2006.[23][30] As McCallum's principal deputy, he assisted in managing the Department of Justice's civil litigation components, which included the antitrust, civil, civil rights, environment, and tax divisions.[23]

While managing the United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Gorsuch was tasked with all the "terror litigation" arising from the president's War on Terror, successfully defending the extraordinary rendition of Khalid El-Masri, fighting the disclosure of Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse photographs, and, in November 2005, traveling to inspect the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[42]

Gorsuch helped Attorney General Alberto Gonzales prepare for hearings after the public revelation of NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07), and worked with Senator Lindsey Graham in drafting the provisions in the Detainee Treatment Act that attempted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the detainees.[43]

Gorsuch advocates a broad definition of religious freedom that is inimical to church–state separation advocates.[51][52][53]

In Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius (2013), Gorsuch wrote a concurrence when the en banc circuit found the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate on a private business violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.[54] That ruling was upheld 5–4 by the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014).[55] When a panel of the court denied similar claims under the same act in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell (2015), Gorsuch joined Judges Harris Hartz, Paul Joseph Kelly Jr., Timothy Tymkovich, and Jerome Holmes in their dissent to the denial of rehearing en banc.[56] That ruling was vacated and remanded to the Tenth Circuit by the per curiam Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell (2016).[55]

In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2007), he joined Judge Michael W. McConnell's dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, taking the view that the government's display of a donated Ten Commandments monument in a public park did not obligate the government to display other offered monuments.[57] The Supreme Court subsequently adopted most of the dissent's view, reversing the Tenth Circuit's judgment.[55] Gorsuch has written, "the law [...] doesn't just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation's long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance".[58]

Gorsuch has called for reconsideration of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), in which the Supreme Court instructed courts to grant deference to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous laws and regulations. In Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016), Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous panel finding that court review was required before an executive agency could reject the circuit court's interpretation of an immigration law.[59][60]

Alone, Gorsuch added a concurring opinion, criticizing Chevron deference and National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services (2005) as an "abdication of judicial duty" and writing that deference is "more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design".[61][62]

In United States v. Hinckley (2008), Gorsuch argued that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act likely violates the nondelegation doctrine.[63] Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had held the same view in their 2012 dissent in Reynolds v. United States.[64]

Gorsuch has been an opponent of the dormant Commerce Clause, which allows state laws to be declared unconstitutional if they too greatly burden interstate commerce. In 2011, Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel finding that the dormant Commerce Clause did not prevent the Oklahoma Water Resources Board from blocking water exports to Texas.[65] A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann (2013).[66]

In 2013, Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel finding that federal courts could not hear a challenge to Colorado's internet sales tax.[67] A unanimous Supreme Court reversed that ruling in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl (2015).[66] In 2016, the Tenth Circuit panel rejected the challenger's dormant commerce clause claim, with Gorsuch writing a concurrence.[68]

In Energy and Environmental Legal Institute v. Joshua Epel (2015), Gorsuch held that Colorado's mandates for renewable energy did not violate the commerce clause by putting out-of-state coal companies at a disadvantage.[69] He wrote that the Colorado renewable energy law "isn't a price-control statute, it doesn't link prices paid in Colorado with those paid out of state, and it does not discriminate against out-of-staters".[70][71]

In Riddle v. Hickenlooper (2014), Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel of the Tenth Circuit in finding that it was unconstitutional for a Colorado law to set the limit on donations for write-in candidates at half the amount for major party candidates.[72] He added a concurrence noting that although the standard of review of campaign finance in the United States is unclear, the Colorado law would fail even under intermediate scrutiny.[73]

In Planned Parenthood v. Herbert (2016), Gorsuch wrote for the four dissenting judges when the Tenth Circuit denied a full rehearing of a divided panel opinion that had ordered the Utah governor to resume the organization's funding, which Herbert had blocked in response to a video controversy.[74][75]

In A.M. v. Holmes (2016), the Tenth Circuit considered a case in which a 13-year-old child was arrested for burping and laughing in gym class. The child was handcuffed and arrested based on a New Mexico statute that makes it a misdemeanor to disrupt school activities. The child's family brought a federal § 1983 civil rights action against school officials and the school resource officer who made the arrest, arguing that it was a false arrest that violated the child's constitutional rights. In a 94-page majority opinion, the Tenth Circuit held that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity from suit.[76] Gorsuch wrote a four-page dissent, arguing that the New Mexico Court of Appeals had "long ago alerted law enforcement" that the statute that the officer relied upon for the child's arrest does not criminalize noises or diversions that merely disturb order in a classroom.[76][77][78]

In 2009, Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous panel finding that a court may still order criminals to pay restitution even after it missed a statutory deadline.[79] The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling 5–4 in Dolan v. United States (2010).[66]

In United States v. Games-Perez (2012), Gorsuch ruled on a case where a felon owned a gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but alleged that he did not know that he was a felon at the time. Gorsuch joined the majority in upholding the conviction based on Tenth Circuit precedent, but filed a concurring opinion arguing that said precedent was wrongly decided: "The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force."[80] In the 2019 case Rehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court overruled this decision, with Gorsuch joining.

In 2013, Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel finding that intent does not need to be proven under a bank fraud statute.[81] A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in Loughrin v. United States (2014).[66] In 2015, Gorsuch wrote a dissent to the denial of rehearing en banc when the Tenth Circuit found that a convicted sex offender had to register with Kansas after he moved to the Philippines.[82] A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit in Nichols v. United States (2016).[66]

Gorsuch favors a strict reading of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).[55] In 2015, he wrote for the court when it permitted Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to order the execution of Scott Eizember, prompting a 30-page dissent by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe.[83][84] After the state's unsuccessful execution of Clayton Lockett, Gorsuch joined Briscoe when the court unanimously allowed Pruitt to continue using the same lethal injection protocol. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling 5–4 in Glossip v. Gross (2015).[85]

During his tenure on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch authored 212 published opinions.[86] Some of those are:

Gorsuch at the LBJ Presidential Library in 2019

Gorsuch wrote his first U.S. Supreme Court decision for a unanimous court in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ___ (2017). Gorsuch and the Court ruled against the borrowers, holding that Santander in this case is not a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act since it purchased the original defaulted car loans from CitiFinancial for pennies on the dollar, making Santander the owner of the debts and not merely an agent.[110] When the act was enacted, regulations were put on institutions that collected other companies' debts, but the act left unaddressed businesses collecting their own debts.[111][112]

Gorsuch joined the majority in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. AFSCME, which both held unconstitutional certain forms of compelled speech.[113][114]

In 2017, in Pavan v. Smith, the Supreme Court "summarily overruled" the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision to deny same-sex married parents the same right to appear on the birth certificate.[115] Gorsuch wrote a dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito, arguing that the Court should have fully heard the arguments of the case.[116]

In 2020, Gorsuch wrote 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, ruling that businesses cannot discriminate in employment against LGBTQ people. He argued that discrimination based on sexual orientation was illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, because the employer would be discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex".[117] The ruling was 6–3, with Gorsuch joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's four Democratic appointees.[118][119] Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented from the decision, arguing that it improperly extended the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.[120]

In October 2020, Gorsuch agreed with the justices in an "apparently unanimous" decision to deny an appeal from Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[121] In June 2021, he joined the justices in a unanimous decision, ruling in favor of a Catholic adoption agency that had been denied a contract by the City of Philadelphia due to the agency's refusal to adopt to same-sex couples; Gorsuch joined a concurring opinion by Alito and also joined by Thomas, that argued for reconsidering, possibly overturning, Employment Division v. Smith, "an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices."[122] Also in 2021, he was one of three justices, with 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 her religious beliefs against same-sex marriage.[123][124][125] In November 2021, Gorsuch dissented from the Court's 6–3 decision to reject an appeal from Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a hospital affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, which had sought to deny a hysterectomy to a transgender patient on religious grounds.[126] The decision to reject the appeal left in place a lower court ruling in the patient's favor; Thomas and Alito also dissented.[127][128]

Gorsuch joined Thomas's dissent from denial of certiorari in Peruta v. San Diego County, in which the Ninth Circuit had upheld California's restrictive concealed carry laws.[129]

Gorsuch wrote a statement regarding the denial of an application for a stay presented to Roberts in Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, a 2019 D.C. Circuit case challenging the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks. In his statement Gorsuch criticized the Trump Administration's action as well as the justification the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit used for upholding the ban.[130][131]

In Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 to uphold the Ninth Circuit's decision that the residual clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutionally vague. Gorsuch joined Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the opinion, and wrote a separate concurrence reiterating the importance of the vagueness doctrine within Scalia's 2015 opinion in Johnson.[132] In United States v. Davis (2019), Gorsuch wrote the Opinion of the Court striking down the residual clause of the Hobbs Act based on the rationale used in Dimaya.[133][134]

In December 2018, Gorsuch dissented when the Court voted against hearing cases brought by the states of Louisiana and Kansas to deny Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.[135] He and Alito joined Thomas's dissent arguing that it was the Court's job to hear the case.[136]

In February 2019, Gorsuch sided with three of the Court's other conservative justices voting to reject a stay to temporarily block a law restricting abortion in Louisiana.[137] The law that the court temporarily stayed, in a 5–4 decision, would require that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges in a hospital.[138] In June 2020, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's abortion restriction in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, a 5–4 decision; Gorsuch was among the four dissenters.[139][140] In September 2021, the Supreme Court declined a petition to block a Texas law banning abortion after six weeks; the vote was 5–4 with Gorsuch in the majority, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.[141]

In June 2022, Gorsuch was among the five justices who formed the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[142]

During his time on the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has frequently departed from his fellow conservative justices in affirming tribal rights; his appointment to the Court was supported by multiple tribes and Native American organizations due to his favorable rulings as a Tenth Circuit judge.[143][144]

In March 2019, Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices (in two plurality opinions) in a 5–4 majority in Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.[145] The Court's decision sided with the Yakama Nation, striking down a Washington state tax on transporting gasoline, on the basis of an 1855 treaty in which the Yakama ceded a large portion of Washington in exchange for certain rights.[146] In his concurrence, which was joined by Ginsburg, Gorsuch ended his opinion by writing: "Really, this case just tells an old and familiar story. 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."[147]

In May 2019, Gorsuch again joined the four more liberal justices in a decision favorable to Native Americans' treaty rights, signing on to Justice Sotomayor's opinion to reach a 5–4 decision in Herrera v. Wyoming. The case held that hunting rights in Montana and Wyoming, granted by the U.S. government to the Native American Crow people by an 1868 treaty, were not extinguished by the 1890 grant of statehood to Wyoming.[148]

In July 2020, Gorsuch again joined the liberal justices to make a 5–4 majority in McGirt v. Oklahoma. The case considered whether much of eastern Oklahoma still remained under the jurisdiction of the "Five Civilized Tribes", given that the Native American Treaties that had designated the region as under their reservation status had never been dissolved by Congress, and, if so, whether crimes committed by Native Americans against other Native Americans on tribal land were under the jurisdiction of Native Courts.[149] The landmark decision in the affirmative, written by Gorsuch, found that "For Major Crimes Act purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains 'Indian country.'"[150][151] In the opinion, 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."[151] The case was later reviewed in the June 2022 case Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which considered whether non-Natives who committed crimes against Natives on Native American territory can be charged under the sole jurisdiction of Native American tribal courts.[152][153] While the state of Oklahoma had initially argued for the overturning of McGirt, the Court agreed to hear only issues relating to the impacts of McGirt.[154] The 5-4 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh opposed the more expanded viewpoint of non-Native criminal jurisdiction, with the opinion giving jurisdiction over such crimes to both tribal and federal/state governments. Gorsuch derided the opinion in his dissent, writing, "Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts."[155][156]

On June 15, 2022, Gorsuch, Barrett, and the three liberal justices ruled in favor of the Native American Tribes of Texas in the case Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas. The case concerned a dispute over whether Texas could control and regulate gambling on Texan Native American reservations. The initial conflict had developed from the tribes' having been in a trust with Texas from 1968 to 1987 before being granted a federal trust, resulting in a statute governing the tribes' subjugation to Texas's gambling restrictions.[157] The ruling emphasized that the tribes have the power to regulate electronic bingo games on their land regardless of the state's prohibition of non-prohibited gambling. Thus, as long as a game is not outright prohibited by the state of Texas, the state government cannot impose regulations upon tribal games. Gorsuch emphasized in his opinion that "None of this is to say that the Tribe may offer gaming on whatever terms it wishes [...] Other gaming activities are subject to tribal regulation and must conform to the terms and conditions set forth in federal law."[158]

In July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in two separate 7–2 decisions in Trump v. Vance that the Manhattan district attorney could access Trump's tax records, but returned the case of Congressional access to the lower courts, pending the outcome of that case.[159] Gorsuch joined Roberts, Kavanaugh, and the four Democratic appointees in the majority in both cases while Thomas and Alito dissented.[159][160]

FiveThirtyEight used Lee Epstein et al.'s Judicial Common Space scores[163] (which are not based on a judge's behavior, but rather the ideology scores of either home state senators or the appointing president) to find a close alignment between the conservatism of other appellate and Supreme Court judges such as Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito.[164] The Washington Post's statistical analysis estimated that the ideologies of most of Trump's announced candidates were "statistically indistinguishable" and also associated Gorsuch with Kavanaugh and Alito.[165]

Gorsuch in 2019

In a 2016 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.[166]

In a 2005 National Review article, Gorsuch argued that "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda" and that they are "failing to reach out and persuade the public". He wrote that, in doing so, American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to a compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent. Gorsuch wrote that American liberals' "overweening addiction" to using the courts for social debate is "bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary".[46][167]

Justin Marceau, a professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, called Gorsuch "a predictably socially conservative judge who tends to favor state power over federal power". Marceau added that the issue of states' rights is important since federal laws have been used to reel in "rogue" state laws in civil rights cases.[168]

In July 2006, Gorsuch's book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, developed from his doctoral thesis, was published by Princeton University Press.[5][169][170][171] In the book, Gorsuch makes clear his personal opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide, arguing that the U.S. should "retain existing law [banning assisted suicide and euthanasia] on the basis that human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."[58][170][172]

Gorsuch has been considered to follow in Scalia's footsteps as a textualist in statutory interpretation of the plain meaning of the law.[173][174] This was exemplified in his majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grants protection from employment discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity. Gorsuch wrote in the decision, "An employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."[175][176][177]

Gorsuch was the first member of a mainline Protestant denomination to sit on the Supreme Court since the retirement of John Paul Stevens in 2010.[185][186][187] He and his two siblings were raised Catholic and attended weekly Mass. Gorsuch attended Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit Catholic high school in North Bethesda, Maryland, from which he graduated in 1985.[18][19][20][21] His wife, Louise, is British-born; the two met while Neil was studying at Oxford. Louise was raised in the Church of England.[188] The two married at St. Nicholas' Anglican Church in Henley-on-Thames.[189]

When the couple returned to the United States they joined Holy Comforter, an Episcopal parish in Vienna, Virginia, attending weekly services. Gorsuch volunteered there as an usher.[187] The Gorsuch family later attended St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, a liberal church with a longstanding open-door policy for the LGBT community.[4][190][191] The Episcopal Church and the Church of England are both members of the Anglican Communion, which considers itself both Catholic and Reformed but rejects papal authority.[192][193] During his 2017 confirmation hearing, responding to a Senator's question about his faith, Gorsuch replied, "I attend an Episcopal church in Boulder with my family, Senator."[194][195][196] After marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony and joining an Episcopal church, Gorsuch has not publicly clarified his religious affiliation.[188]

• Gorsuch, Neil (2004). The right to receive assistance in suicide and euthanasia, with particular reference to the law of the United States (DPhil thesis). University of Oxford.
• Gorsuch, Neil (2006). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400830343. ISBN 978-1-4008-3034-3.
• Gorsuch, Neil (2019). A Republic, If You Can Keep It. New York: Crown Forum. ISBN 978-0-525-57678-5.

• 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. Also published as: Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178 (1992).
• Gorsuch, Neil (2000). "The Right to Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 23 (2): 599–710. PMID 12524693.
• Gorsuch, Neil; Wood, Diane; Yahner, Ann; Issacharoff, Samuel; Anderson, Brian; Bryant, Arthur (September 13, 2004). Panel 2: Tools for Ensuring that Settlements Are "Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate" (PDF). Protecting Consumer Interests in Class Actions. pp. 84–139. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 31, 2020. Transcript published by The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. 18: 1197.
• 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. doi:10.1080/01947640701554468. PMID 17885904. S2CID 36871391.
• Gorsuch, Neil (2014). "Law's Irony (Thirteenth Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture)" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 37 (3): 743–756. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2017.
• 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" (PDF). Judicature. 100 (3): 46–55. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 2, 2017. Retrieved February 2, 2017.
• Gorsuch, Neil (2018). "In Tribute: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 132: 3–5.

• 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. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020.
• Gorsuch, Neil (March 18, 2004). "Letter to the Editor: Nonpartisan Fee Awards". The Washington Post. p. A30. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020.
• Gorsuch, Neil; Matey, Paul (January 31, 2005). "No Loss, No Gain". Legal Times.
• Gorsuch, Neil (February 7, 2005). "Liberals'N'Lawsuits". National Review Online. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020.
• Gorsuch, Neil; Matey, Matey (2005). "Settlements in Securities Fraud Class Actions: Improving Investor Protections" (PDF). 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. pp. 413–424. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199675500.003.0026. ISBN 978-0-19-967550-0.
• Gorsuch, Neil; Coats, Nathan; Dunn, Stephanie; Myhre, Blain; Witt, Jesse (2013). "Effective Brief Writing". Appellate Practice Update 2013. OCLC 889590599.
• Gorsuch, Neil (September 5, 2019). "Disregarding the Separation of Powers Has Real-Life Consequences". National Review. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020.

• 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.