Neil McGill Gorsuch

Neil McGill Gorsuch 

First Look Research Report 

01/31/2017 

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 

Top Hits .................................................................................................................................... 5 

Radical Right Wing Jurisprudence ........................................................................................... 5 

Claimed The Courts Should Not Be Used To Fight For Civil Rights ......................................................... 5 

Gorsuch Supported An Extreme Non-Delegation Doctrine........................................................................ 6 

Proponent Of Textualism And Originalism ................................................................................................. 7 

Opposed The Chevron Doctrine .................................................................................................................. 8 

Extreme On Police Brutality ................................................................................................... 10 

Gorsuch Rulings Gave Officers Broad Authority, Immunity In Use Of Force .......................................... 10 

Bad For Women ...................................................................................................................... 12 

Threat To Privacy .................................................................................................................... 14 

Bad For Workers ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Ruled Against Workers Who Were Misinformed About Their Retirement Benefits ................................. 15 

Biography and Background .................................................................................................... 17 

Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 

Childhood and Education ........................................................................................................................... 18 

Family .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Writing ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 

Ideology ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 

Hobbies ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 

Wealth ...................................................................................................................................... 22 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 

Assets .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 

Reimbursements & Gifts ............................................................................................................................ 24 

Positions ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 

Career As An Attorney ............................................................................................................. 29 

Bar Association Memberships .................................................................................................................... 29 

Career Spent Almost Entirely In Washington, DC .................................................................................... 29 

1991- 1994: Clerkships ................................................................................................................................. 29 

2

University Of Colorado Law School ........................................................................................................... 30 

1995- 2005: Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel ...................................................................... 30 

2005- 2006: Department Of Justice ............................................................................................................. 36 

10 th Circuit Court Of Appeals (2006- Present) ........................................................................ 41 

2006: Nominated And Confirmed To The 10 th Circuit Court of Appeals .................................................... 41 

“Feeder Judge” ........................................................................................................................................... 42 

Potential Supreme Court Nominee ........................................................................................ 44 

2012: Supreme Court Speculation ............................................................................................................... 44 

2017: Supreme Court Appointment ............................................................................................................ 44 

Relationships With Individuals .............................................................................................. 46 

Antonin Scalia ............................................................................................................................................. 46 

Anthony Kennedy ....................................................................................................................................... 46 

Relationships With Groups ..................................................................................................... 48 

Federalist Socirty ........................................................................................................................................ 48 

Heritage Foundation .................................................................................................................................. 48 

Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 49 

Abortion And Family Planning ............................................................................................... 49 

Abortion, Generally ..................................................................................................................................... 49 

Contraception ............................................................................................................................................. 49 

Planned Parenthood .................................................................................................................................... 51 

Roe V. Wade ............................................................................................................................................... 52 

Vanity License Plates.................................................................................................................................. 52 

Civil Rights and Liberties ....................................................................................................... 52 

Right To Petition ........................................................................................................................................ 53 

Religious Freedom ..................................................................................................................................... 53 

Court Interpreters ....................................................................................................................................... 54 

Privacy ......................................................................................................................................................... 54 

Crime and Public Safety .......................................................................................................... 56 

Privacy ......................................................................................................................................................... 56 

Excessive Force .......................................................................................................................................... 56 

Mentally Ill Inmates ................................................................................................................................... 57 

3

Death Penalty ............................................................................................................................................. 58 

Gun Crime .................................................................................................................................................. 58 

Sentencing Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 59 

Energy and the Environment.................................................................................................. 60 

EPA ............................................................................................................................................................. 60 

Nuclear Waste............................................................................................................................................. 60 

Renewable Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 61 

Government and Campaign Reform....................................................................................... 62 

Term Limits ................................................................................................................................................ 62 

Campaign Finance ..................................................................................................................................... 64 

Health Care ............................................................................................................................. 65 

Death With Dignity .................................................................................................................................... 65 

Malpractice Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 65 

Concussions ................................................................................................................................................ 66 

Judicial Affairs ......................................................................................................................... 67 

Ideology ...................................................................................................................................................... 67 

Legal Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 69 

Judicial Reform ........................................................................................................................................... 72 

Labor ........................................................................................................................................ 73 

Harassment ................................................................................................................................................. 73 

Louisiana Teachers’ Retirement System .................................................................................................... 73 

Retirement Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 74 

LGBTQ .................................................................................................................................... 75 

Spousal Benefits.......................................................................................................................................... 75 

Native Americans .................................................................................................................... 76 

Casinos ........................................................................................................................................................ 76 

Tribal Lands ............................................................................................................................................... 76 

4

TOP HITS 

RADICAL RIGHT WING JURISPRUDENCE 

Gorsuch has written and made legal decisions that show 

Gorsuch opposes what he calls “judicial activism,” claiming that “liberals” were “addicted” to relying on the courts to 

debate social policy. Gorsuch argued that a reliance on judges to establish civil rights was “bad for the country.” 

Gorsuch supported an extreme “non-delegation” doctrine that required that only legislators, not federal agencies, could 

make policy decisions. Critics noted that even the conservative former Justice Scalia rejected this doctrine. 

Gorsuch is a Textualist and an Originalist who believes judges should use “text, structure and history” to understand what 

the law is, “not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve 

society best.” 

Gorsuch opposed the “Chevron Doctrine,” a legal principle giving power to government agencies when a law is 

considered ambiguous. Proponents of the Chevron Doctrine argue that it protects workers’ rights. 

Claimed The Courts Should Not Be Used To Fight For Civil Rights 

GORSUCH ARGUED THAT THE COURST SHOULD NOT BE USED TO LITIGATE 

A “SOCIAL AGENDA” 

Gorsuch: “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.” According to 

a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured critical civil-right 

victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But rather than use the 

judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes 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 on 

everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. [National Review, 

2/7/05] 



the Denver Post, “Gorsuch’s published works show conservative leanings. In a 2005 article in the National Review, 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.’” [Denver Post, 7/21/06] 

Gorsuch: Legislators “May Appeal To Their Own Moral Convictions And To Claims About Social Utility To 

Reshape The Law As They Think It Should Be In The Future” But “Judges Should Do None Of These Things In A 

Democratic Society.” According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to federal 

agencies and is most noted for a strong defense of religious exemptions in cases brought by private companies and religious 

nonprofit groups objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that 

as a judge he had tried to follow Scalia’s path. ‘The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences 

between judges and legislators,’ Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. 

Legislators ‘may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it 

should be in the future,’ Gorsuch said. But ‘judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.’ Instead, they 

should use ‘text, structure and history’ to understand what the law is, ‘not to decide cases based on their own moral 

convictions or the pol-icy consequences they believe might serve society best.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

5

Gorsuch Pointed To Same Sex Marriage As An Example Of A Liberal Social Agenda That Should Not Be 

Heard In Court 

Gorsuch Claimed Marriage Equality Was Part Of A Liberal “Social Agenda” That Should Not Be Litigated. 

According to a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured 

critical civil-right victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But 

rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes 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 on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. 

[National Review, 2/7/05] 

Gorsuch Claimed The Use Of Courts For Social Policy Was “Bad For The Country” And The Legislature 

Gorsuch: Liberals’ “Addiction To The Courtroom As The Place To Debate Social Policy Is Bad For The Country 

And Bad For The Judiciary.” According to the Denver Post, “Gorsuch’s nomination goes to a Senate committee. The 

hearings could include questions about his political leanings. His published works suggest he is a conservative who has strong 

feelings about the role of the judiciary. In ‘Liberals n’ Lawsuits,’ published in 2005 in the National Review, he said that liberals’ 

‘addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.’ He wrote that 

the politicized confirmation process leaves judges at risk for being treated as ‘little more than politicians with robes.’” [Denver 

Post, 5/10/06] 

Gorsuch: Liberals’ Reliance On Court Decisions Removes The Practice Of Compromise In The Legislative Arena. 

According to a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to 

debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is 

closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little 

room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose.” [National Review, 2/7/05] 

Gorsuch: “In Constitutional Litigation” Americans “Lose The Benefit Of The Give-And-Take Of The Political 

Process And The Flexibility Of Social Experimentation That Only The Elected Branches Can Provide.” According 

to a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world 

laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract 

world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and 

the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.” [National Review, 2/7/05] 

Gorsuch Supported An Extreme Non-Delegation Doctrine 

Daniel Goldberg Of The Alliance For Justice Said Gorsuch Has Advocated The “Nondelegation Doctrine” That 

Constrains The Ability Of Federal Agencies To Carry Out Their Statutory Missions. According to Newsday, “Daniel 

Goldberg, legal director at the progressive Alliance for Justice, said Trump wants to install ‘radical reactionaries’ on the 

Supreme Court. ‘Looking at their records, many of them are worse than Scalia,’ Goldberg said of the finalists. For instance, 

Goldberg noted that Gorsuch made the case for the ‘nondelegation doctrine’ that Goldberg said constrains the ability of 

federal agencies to carry out their statutory missions. ‘He’s espousing doctrines that Justice Scalia had rejected,’ Goldberg said. 

Proponents of the doctrine say it safeguards individual liberties and ensures that elected officials make major policy decisions, 

not unelected administrators. Gorsuch, a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, practices ‘originalism,’ or 

the interpretation of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended in their time, and ‘textualism’ - literal reading of 

statutes.” [Newsday, 1/30/17] 

 

The “Nondelegation Doctrine” required That Only Elected Officials, Not Agencies, Could Make Policy 

Decisions. According to Newsday, “Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the progressive Alliance for Justice, said Trump 

wants to install ‘radical reactionaries’ on the Supreme Court. ‘Looking at their records, many of them are worse than 

Scalia,’ Goldberg said of the finalists. For instance, Goldberg noted that Gorsuch made the case for the ‘nondelegation 

doctrine’ that Goldberg said constrains the ability of federal agencies to carry out their statutory missions. ‘He’s espousing 

6

doctrines that Justice Scalia had rejected,’ Goldberg said. Proponents of the doctrine say it safeguards individual liberties 

and ensures that elected officials make major policy decisions, not unelected administrators. Gorsuch, a graduate of 

Columbia University and Harvard Law School, practices ‘originalism,’ or the interpretation of the Constitution as the 

Founding Fathers intended in their time, and ‘textualism’ - literal reading of statutes.” [Newsday, 1/30/17] 

Gorsuch Has Contended That Courts Give Too Much Deference To Government Agencies’ Interpretations Of 

Statutes. According to Star-News, “He has contended that courts give too much deference to government agencies 

interpretations of statutes.” [Star-News, 1/25/17] 

NON-DELEGATION WAS EXTREME, EVEN FOR FORMER JUSTICE SCALIA 

Daniel Goldberg Of The Alliance For Justice Noted That Gorsuch’s Non-Delegation Doctrine Was More 

Conservative Than Former Justice Scalia’s Views. According to Newsday, “Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the 

progressive Alliance for Justice, said Trump wants to install ‘radical reactionaries’ on the Supreme Court. ‘Looking at their 

records, many of them are worse than Scalia,’ Goldberg said of the finalists. For instance, Goldberg noted that Gorsuch made 

the case for the ‘nondelegation doctrine’ that Goldberg said constrains the ability of federal agencies to carry out their 

statutory missions. ‘He’s espousing doctrines that Justice Scalia had rejected,’ Goldberg said. Proponents of the doctrine say it 

safeguards individual liberties and ensures that elected officials make major policy decisions, not unelected administrators. 

Gorsuch, a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, practices ‘originalism,’ or the interpretation of the 

Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended in their time, and ‘textualism’ - literal reading of statutes.” [Newsday, 1/30/17] 

Proponent Of Textualism And Originalism 

GORSUCH WAS A SUPPORTED OF STRICT TEXTUALISM AND ORIGINALISM 

New York Times: Gorsuch “Is A Textualist, Focusing On The Language Of Statutes Rather Than What Lawmakers 

Have Had To Say About Them.” According to The New York Times, “Judge Gorsuch ‘s credentials, erudition and more 

muted stances could smooth his confirmation chances, at least as compared with Judge Pryor. Appointed to the appeals court 

by President George W. Bush in 2006, Judge Gorsuch , 49, has a legal approach that mirrors that of Justice Scalia. He is an 

originalist, meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution consistently with the understanding of those who drafted and 

adopted it. And he is a textualist, focusing on the language of statutes rather than what lawmakers have had to say about 

them.” [New York Times, 1/24/17] 

Neil Gorsuch Is Reportedly A Constitutional Originalist. According to Washington Post Blogs, “Gorsuch is an 

originalist, like Scalia, meaning he attempts to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they 

were written. He is protective of religious rights and found that they could be infringed by requirements of the Affordable 

Care Act requiring employers to provide contraceptive services.” [Washington Post Blogs, 1/25/17] 

Gorsuch Argued That Judges Should Rely Only On Text And History, not What May Benefit Society 

Neil Gorsuch: Judges Should “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.” According to CNN, “In a speech at Case Western Gorsuch said 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.’ It was vintage Scalia.” [CNN, 

1/24/17] 

Gorsuch: Judges Should Use “Text, Structure And History” To Understand What The Law Is, “Not To Decide 

Cases Based On Their Own Moral Convictions Or The Policy Consequences They Believe Might Serve Society 

Best.” According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to federal agencies and is 

7

most noted for a strong defense of religious exemptions in cases brought by private companies and religious nonprofit groups 

objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that as a judge he had 

tried to follow Scalia’s path. ‘The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and 

legislators,’ Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. Legislators ‘may appeal 

to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future,’ 

Gorsuch said. But ‘judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.’ Instead, they should use ‘text, structure and 

history’ to understand what the law is, ‘not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the pol-icy consequences 

they believe might serve society best.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

Opposed The Chevron Doctrine 

Gorsuch Argued Against The Chevron Doctrine 

Gorsuch Argued Against The Chevron Doctrine. According to Newsweek, “Gorsuch has supported challenging the socalled 

Chevron Doctrine, which the Supreme Court established for courts to generally defer to agencies’ interpretation of 

statutory language. In a concurring opinion he wrote in August 2016, for Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he called the doctrine 

the ‘elephant in the room’ and suggested allowing ‘executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and 

legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution 

of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.’ Supporters argue the doctrine is especially crucial for 

worker protections and scientific advancement.” [Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

 

The Chevron Doctrine Allowed Federal Agencies To Interpret Laws That Applied To That Agency. According to 

Newsweek, “Gorsuch has supported challenging the so-called Chevron Doctrine, which the Supreme Court established 

for courts to generally defer to agencies’ interpretation of statutory language. In a concurring opinion he wrote in August 

2016, for Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he called the doctrine the ‘elephant in the room’ and suggested allowing ‘executive 

bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that 

seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face 

the behemoth.’ Supporters argue the doctrine is especially crucial for worker protections and scientific advancement.” 

[Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

Criticized The Doctrine As A Abdication Of Judicial And Legislative Authority 

Neil Gorsuch Challenged The Chevron Doctrine, Which Directed Courts To Defer To Agencies’ Interpretations Of 

Statutory Language. According to The Denver Post, “In a concurring opinion on a case before the 10th Circuit, Gorsuch 

challenged the so called Chevron doctrine, which directs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations of statutory language. He 

called it the ‘elephant in the room’ and went on to suggest it may be time to reconsider an approach that lets executive 

bureaucracies ‘concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the 

framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.’” [Denver Post, 12/11/16] 

Neil Gorsuch: “Chevron Seems No Less Than A Judge-Made Doctrine For The Abdication Of Judicial Duty.” 

According to SNL Electric Utility Report, “Like several U.S. Supreme Court justices before him, a federal appeals judge - who 

also is the son of the first female U.S. EPA head - has argued that the courts should not be so quick to offer so-called 

‘Chevron deference’ to federal agencies’ interpretations of statutory language. ‘Chevron seems no less than a judge-made 

doctrine for the abdication of judicial duty,’ Judge Neil McGill Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit 

wrote in an Aug. 23 concurring opinion. The push for reform is significant, because if courts become more reluctant to defer 

to federal agencies, the U.S. EPA, FERC and other regulators could have a far more difficult time implementing controversial 

new rules.” [SNL Electric Utility Report, 9/5/16] 

Neil Gorsuch Said The “Chevron Doctrine” Allowed “Executive Bureaucracies To Swallow Huge Amounts Of Core 

Judicial And Legislative Power And Concentrate Federal Power.” According to SNL Electric Utility Report, “Gorsuch , 

the son of Reagan-era U.S. EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, has added his voice to the debate. Diving deep into 

the issue, Gorsuch took specific aim at what he described as the executive branch’s use of Chevron deference to overrule 

judicial precedent when interpreting a congressional statute. The case before the 10th Circuit - Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Loretta 

8

Lynch (No. 14-9585) - was complicated, involving the residency of undocumented immigrants and the question of whether an 

agency can apply its interpretation of the law retrospectively. ‘There’s an elephant in the room with us today,’ wrote Gorsuch 

in his opinion. Chevron allows ‘executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and 

concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ 

design,’ the judge said. ‘Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.’” [SNL Electric Utility Report, 9/5/16] 

Gorsuch’s Opposition To The Chevron Doctrine Differed From Scalia 

Heartland Institute Executive Editor Justin Haskins Noted That Neil Gorsuch Opposed The “Chevron Deference,” 

A Legal Principle Giving Power To Government Agencies When A Law Is Considered Ambiguous, Unlike Justice 

Scalia. According to Las Vegas Sun, “At 49, Gorsuch is five years younger than Pryor and isn’t without controversies of his 

own. A graduate of Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, Gorsuch is an avid believer in restricting the power of regulatory 

agencies, a decision many environmental organizations would find particularly concerning. On that front, Gorsuch may be 

more conservative than Scalia. For instance, Gorsuch opposes what’s known in administrative law as ‘Chevron deference,’ a 

legal principle giving power to government agencies when a law is considered ambiguous. Although Scalia often opposed 

agencies imposing expansive regulations on individuals and businesses, he was a big defender of Chevron, one of the few 

issues on which many limited-government advocates disagreed with Scalia.” [Justin Haskins Op-Ed, Las Vegas Sun, 1/29/17] 

THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE PROTECTED WORKERS’ RIGHTS 

Supporters Of The Chevron Doctrine Argued It Protected Workers’ Rights And Scientific Advancement. According 

to Newsweek, “Gorsuch has supported challenging the so-called Chevron Doctrine, which the Supreme Court established for 

courts to generally defer to agencies’ interpretation of statutory language. In a concurring opinion he wrote in August 2016, for 

Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he called the doctrine the ‘elephant in the room’ and suggested allowing ‘executive bureaucracies 

to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a 

little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.’ 

Supporters argue the doctrine is especially crucial for worker protections and scientific advancement.” [Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

9

EXTREME ON POLICE BRUTALITY 

Gorsuch’s rulings often condoned police brutality gave broad powers to conduct searches without warrants: 

In 2013, after an officer killed a fleeing man by tasing him in the head, Gorsuch claimed all police officers had immunity 

from excessive force suits unless they were “plainly incompetent” or knowlingly violating the law 

Gorsuch claimed a police officer that put a nine-year-old in a twist lock did not use excessive force. 

Gorsuch Rulings Gave Officers Broad Authority, Immunity In Use Of Force 

GORSUCH ARGUED POLICE OFFICERS HAD IMMUNITY IN USING FORCE 

UNLESS THEY WERE “PLAINLY INCOMPETENT” 

Gorsuch Claimed That All Police Officers Had Immunity Unless They Were “Plainly Incompetent” Or Knowingly 

Violating The Law. According to the Denver Post, “‘We sympathize with the Wilsons over their terrible loss. But the 

Supreme Court has directed the lower fed-eral courts to apply qualified immunity broadly to protect .... all officers except ‘the 

plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,’ Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in affirming the district 

court decision.” [Denver Post, 2/22/13] 

GORSUCH CLAIMED A POLICE OFFICER THAT PUT A NINE-YEAR-OLD IN A 

TWIST LOCK DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE 

Gorsuch Ruled That A Police Officer Who Put A Nine-Year-Old In An Arm Twist Lock Did Not Use Excessive 

Force. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “After a 9-year-old boy stole an iPad from his Sandy elementary school in 2011, 

his principal wanted him charged with theft. A Sandy police officer called to the school ended up pushing the boy’s arm into a 

pain-ful twist lock before handcuffing him. The officer didn’t violate the boy’s constitutional rights, a three-judge panel of the 

10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed in a Friday ruling. But they split on the philosophical issue of how 

young offenders should be treated, with Judge Carlos Lucero of Colorado decrying how intertwining criminal justice and 

school discipline is creating a ‘school-to-prison’ pipeline. ‘Focusing narrowly on the legal standards applicable in this case 

renders it too easy to overlook the obvi-ous question: Why are we arresting nine-year-old schoolchildren?’ Lucero wrote. 

Judges Terrence O’Brien and Neil Gorsuch agreed it was regrettable that a police officer felt ‘a need to re-sort to physical 

force, handcuffs, and arrest’ to control the 67-pound boy, but said that ‘equally regrettable is the disrespectful, obdurate, and 

combative behavior of that nine-year-old child.’” [Salt Lake Tribune, 12/05/14] 

 

 

The Nine-Year-Old Had Been Sitting Quietly When The Officer Arrived. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, 

“When Albrand arrived, three school employees had gotten him under control and he was sitting calmly in a hallway. The 

principal, school psychologist and the boy’s grandmother were sitting on the other side of the hallway. The principal told 

Albrand she wanted to file theft charges, and the accounts of what happened next diverge. Albrand said she tried to talk 

with the boy but he didn’t reply. She placed her hands on his left hand and elbow to help him stand, she said, but he 

started twisting and grabbed her arm. Fearing he was trying to get her gun, Albrand said, she placed him in a twist lock 

and then put him in handcuffs. In a twist lock, an officer holds a suspect’s arm at his side with both hands and then twists 

the arm in a painful way to stop the person from fighting or resisting, court documents say.” [The Salt Lake Tribune, 

12/05/14] 

The Officer Claimed She Was Afraid The Nine-Year-Old Was trying To Grab Her Gun. According to The Salt 

Lake Tribune, “When Albrand arrived, three school employees had gotten him under control and he was sitting calmly in 

a hallway. The principal, school psychologist and the boy’s grandmother were sitting on the other side of the hallway. The 

principal told Albrand she wanted to file theft charges, and the accounts of what happened next diverge. Albrand said she 

tried to talk with the boy but he didn’t reply. She placed her hands on his left hand and elbow to help him stand, she said, 

but he started twisting and grabbed her arm. Fearing he was trying to get her gun, Albrand said, she placed him in a twist 

10

lock and then put him in handcuffs. In a twist lock, an officer holds a suspect’s arm at his side with both hands and then 

twists the arm in a painful way to stop the person from fighting or resisting, court documents say.” [The Salt Lake 

Tribune, 12/05/14] 

 

The Force Used On The Child May Have Caused A Fracture On His Collarbone. According to The Salt Lake 

Tribune, “According to the 10th Circuit ruling, an X-ray showed a possible hairline fracture in the boy’s collarbone. The 

child’s grandparents, who are his legal guardians, say he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder because of the 

incident. They filed suit in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City against Albrand and Sandy, claiming that the officer used 

excessive force. […] The 10th Circuit ruling, written by O’Brien, said the key legal question was when Albrand used the 

twist lock. The judges agreed with Shelby that the officer used the hold after the boy grabbed her arm, and that its use in 

those circumstances did not constitute excessive force.” [The Salt Lake Tribune, 12/5/14] 

GORSUCH ARGUED AN OFFICER WHO KILLED A FLEEING MAN BY HITTING 

HIM HEAD WITH A TASER DID NOT AMOUNT TO EXCESSIVE FORCE 

Gorsuch Argued That An Officer That Killed A Fleeing Man By Hitting Him On The Head With A Taser Did Not 

Use Excessive Force. According to Newsweek, “In 2013, the 10th Circuit threw out a lawsuit against the city of Lafayette, 

Colorado, and its police. The parents of Ryan Wilson, a 22-year-old who died after being stunned with a Taser as he ran from 

officers, brought the suit. Gorsuch ruled that an officer didn’t use excessive force when he hit Wilson in the head with the 

stun gun—and killed him—in 2006. The court upheld a District Court’s decision that the officer had qualified immunity, The 

Denver Post reported at the time.” [Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

11

BAD FOR WOMEN 

Gorsuch believed the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate violated the Free Exercise clause and as a judge voted to 

delay imposing fines on Hobby Lobby for refusing to comply with the mandate. In 2015, Gorsuch joined dissenting opinion 

in the Little Sisters Of The Poor case that argued it was a violation of the Free Establishment clause to impose fines for 

refusing to provide health insurance that covered access to abortion-inducing drugs on religious grounds. 

GORSUCH OPPOSED CONTRACEPTION MANDATE 

Argued Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Mandate Violated The Constitution 

Gorsuch Argued The Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Mandate Violated The Free Exercise Clause. According to 

ABC News, “When it comes to religious liberties and access to contraception, Gorsuch is a defender of the ‘Free Exercise 

Clause,’ which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 

thereof. Gorsuch sided with Christian employers and religious organizations in the Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters 

of the Poor Supreme Court cases. The plaintiffs argued for an exemption from the contraception mandate in President 

Obama’s signature health care legislation, the Affordable Care Act, due to religious beliefs. In the Hobby Lobby case, Gorsuch 

wrote, ‘The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of 

assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.’” [ABC News, 1/26/17] 

Gorsuch: “The ACA’s Mandate Requires Them To Violate Their Religious Faith By Forcing Them To Lend An 

Impermissible Degree Of Assistance To Conduct Their Religion Teaches To Be Gravely Wrong.” According to ABC 

News, “In the Hobby Lobby case, Gorsuch wrote, ‘The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by 

forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.’” [ABC 

News, 1/26/17] 

Gorsuch Agreed With The 10 th Circuit Court’s Majority Opinion That Hobby Lobby Had The Right To Challenge The 

Contraception Mandate In Court 

Gorsuch Was In The Majority In The 10 th Circuit Court’s Decision That Hobby Lobby Had Religious Rights To 

Oppose The ACA Contraception Mandate. According to the Wall Street Journal, “A divided federal appeals court said 

Thursday that companies, whether for profit or not, have religious rights. The ruling came in a challenge by arts and crafts 

chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Christian bookstore chain Mardel Inc. to a part of President Barack Obama‘s 2010 

healthcare overhaul — namely, a requirement that employee health insurance plans include free contraceptive coverage. The 

companies say the requirement violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, as well as the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act, which guards against laws that substantially burden that right. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

10th Circuit ruled Thursday that Hobby Lobby and Mardel could likely make their case but stopped short of blocking the 

contraceptive mandate. The court instead sent the case back to a federal district judge for further consideration. […] Judge 

Tymkovich was joined by Judge Paul Kelly Jr., Judge Harris Hartz, Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Robert Bacharach.” [Wall 

Street Journal, 6/27/13] 

Voted To Delay Fines On Hobby Lobby For Violating The ACA Contraception Mandate 

Gorsuch Voted To Delay Fines On Hobby Lobby For Not Complying With The Affordable Care Act’s 

Contraception Mandate. According to the Tulsa World, “In a health-care decision giving hope to opponents of the federal 

birth-control coverage mandate, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hobby Lobby stores may not have to start paying 

millions of dollars in fines as soon as next week for not complying with the requirement. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Denver decided the Oklahoma City-based arts-and-crafts chain will get more time to argue in a lower court that for-profit 

businesses - not just currently exempted religious groups - should be allowed to seek an ex-ception if the law violates their 

religious beliefs. The company had sued to overturn the mandate on grounds that it violates the Christian faith of founder and 

CEO David Green and his family. The appeals court over-turned the decision of a judge in Oklahoma City who refused to 

block parts of President Obama's Affordable Care Act. […] Four of eight judges of the six-state court voted for granting the 

12

injunction, but that was one vote short. They are Paul Kelly of Santa Fe, N.M., Harris Hartz of Albuquerque, Tim Tymkovich 

of Denver and Neil Gorsuch of Denver.” [Tulsa World, 6/28/13] 

Gorsuch Dissented On A 10 th Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruling That Required The Little Sisters Of the 

Poor To Provide Employees With Insurance That Included Contraceptive Options 

Gorsuch Dissented On The 10 th Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruling Against The Little Sisters Of The Poor In Their 

Anti-Contraception Case. According to World Net Daily, “But the 10th Circuit judges’ dissenting opinion Thursday in 

another case centered on religious rights warns of the dangers of having judges ‘examine the reasoning behind a religious 

practice or belief and decide what is core and what is derivative.’ In that case, the Little Sisters of the Poor in Denver object to 

having a health insurance policy that provides abortion-causing drugs for their employees. The nuns argue that either 

providing the drugs or authorizing someone else to provide them would violate Catholic doctrine. […]The majority of the 

10th Circuit refused to hear the case of the Little Sisters, who now have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. ‘The doctrine of 

the panel majority will not long survive,’ the 10th Circuit judges said. ‘It is contrary to all precedent concerning the free 

exercise of religion. I am aware of no precedent holding that a person’s free exercise was not substantially burdened when a 

significant penalty was imposed for refusing to do something prohibited by the person’s sincere religious beliefs (however 

strange, or even silly, the court may consider those beliefs).’ The opinion was written by Judge Harris Hartz, who was joined 

by Neil Gorsuch, Jerome Holmes, Timothy Tymkovich and Paul Kelly.” [World Net Daily, 9/3/15] 

13

THREAT TO PRIVACY 

As judge, Gorsuch issued opinions that expanded officers’ ability to conduct searches on suspects. In 2011, Gorsuch ruled that 

police officers could search individual’s pockets during routine traffic stops. Gorsuch also wrote a dissenting opinion in the 

United States v. Carlos case, in which he argued that police ignoring a “no trespassing” sign did not violate the 4 th amendment. 

GORSUCH OPINIONS GAVE OFFICERS BROAD POWER TO CONDUCT 

SEARCHES 

Gorsuch Ruled Police Officers’ Could Search Individual’s Pockets During Routine Traffic Stops 

Gorsuch Ruled That A Police Officer Could Reach Into A Suspect’s Pockets During A Traffic Stop. According to the 

Albuquerque Journal, “‘Routine’ traffic stops are often anything but that, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals observes in 

affirming an Albuquerque Police Department officer’s decision to reach into a suspect’s pants pockets during just such a stop. 

Every year, thousands of law enforcement officers are assaulted, and many are killed, in what at first seem like routine stops 

for relatively minor traffic infractions, the court said in an recent opinion. ‘This case asks us to address what an officer may 

lawfully do to guard against adding himself to those re-grettable statistics,’ it said. ‘The Fourth Amendment is not a game of 

blind man’s bluff,’ Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in response to the defense argument that an officer may not take 

objects from a suspect’s pockets when he had no idea what they were.” [Albuquerque Journal, 12/26/11] 

Gorsuch Ruled That Police Officers Could Search A Suspect’s Car After A Traffic Stop. According to the Salt Lake 

Tribune, “‘The officers suspected something not at all good was afoot.’ Those officers — described in a recent federal court of 

appeals decision — had just responded to a tip about a prowler at a closed, under-construction apartment complex in North 

Salt Lake. It was Oct. 5, 2011, and they arrived to find Lance Petersen and his pickup truck. The officers detained Petersen 

and searched his vehicle, which led to Petersen being charged in 2nd District Court with two felonies and three misdemeanors 

for burglary, weapons and drug possession. The state charges were later dismissed when Petersen was indicted in U.S. District 

Court for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of marijuana. A federal court judge later granted Petersen’s 

request to suppress evidence in the case, agreeing that it had been collected illegally. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 

overturned that ruling last week in a decision penned by Judge Neil Gorsuch.” [Salt Lake Tribune, 5/24/13] 

Gorsuch Dissented In United States v. Carlos To Argue That Police Ignoring A “No Trespassing” Sign 

Did Not Violate The Fourth Amendment 

Gorsuch Argued That Police Ignoring A “No Trespassing” Sign Did Not Violate The 4 th Amendment. According to 

ABC News, “When it comes to criminal procedure, he dissented in the United States v. Carlos case, arguing that police 

officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered a home that had a ‘No Trespassing’ sign posted.” [ABC News, 

1/26/17] 

14

BAD FOR WORKERS 

In 2013, Gorsuch ruled against employees who claimed that their employer misinformed them about retirement benefits. 

While Gorsuch agreed the employees were misinformed about the calculation of their benefits, he claimed that the company’s 

failure to comply with laws requiring the disclosure were not “significant.” 

Ruled Against Workers Who Were Misinformed About Their Retirement 

Benefits 

Employees Of Solvay Chemicals, Inc. Claimed Their Employer Violated The Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act By Misinforming Them About Their Retirement Benefits. According to Class Action Reporter, “Kurt 

Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the Tenth Circuit on July 2 scrapped a class action alleging that Solvay Chemicals Inc. 

violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when the company implemented a new retirement plan, ruling that it 

didn’t intentionally misinform employees about their benefits. A three-judge panel said that Solvay executives didn’t 

deliberately fail to state how early retirement benefits were calculated under the old pension plan when it informed employees 

of changes in January 2005. Finding that the company’s conduct wasn’t egregious and that a district court didn’t misread 

ERISA lawsuits, the panel denied the employees’ appeal of the lower court’s dismissal of the suit.” [Class Action Reporter, 

8/12/13] 

Gorsuch Ruled Against The Employees. According to Class Action Reporter, “Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports 

that the Tenth Circuit on July 2 scrapped a class action alleging that Solvay Chemicals Inc. violated the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act when the company implemented a new retirement plan, ruling that it didn’t intentionally misinform 

employees about their benefits. A three-judge panel said that Solvay executives didn’t deliberately fail to state how early 

retirement benefits were calculated under the old pension plan when it informed employees of changes in January 2005. 

Finding that the company’s conduct wasn’t egregious and that a district court didn’t misread ERISA lawsuits, the panel denied 

the employees’ appeal of the lower court’s dismissal of the suit.” [Class Action Reporter, 8/12/13] 

 

Gorsuch And The Court Ruled That Solvay’s Failure To Comply With The Law Was Not “Significant” Or 

Intentional. According to Class Action Reporter, “In their appeal, plaintiffs alleged that the lower court improperly used 

character evidence provided by a Solvay employee who testified that the company wouldn’t intentionally break the law, 

court documents said. But the Tenth Circuit said that even if that claim were true, the error wasn’t significant, as 

additional evidence suggested that the company intended to comply with the law. The appeals court also shot down the 

plaintiffs’ allegation that Solvay’s misconduct was egregious because the company didn’t immediately rectify the benefits 

omission, ruling that the district court correctly found that Solvay didn’t discover the mistake until the litigation started.” 

[Class Action Reporter, 8/12/13] 

15

16

BIOGRAPHY AND BACKGROUND 

Overview 

Name: Neil McGill Gorsuch 

Born: 1967, 1 Denver, Colorado 2 

Home: 5373 Lookout Ridge Dr, Boulder, CO 80301 3 

Education: Doctor of Philosophy, University of Oxford, 2004 4 

Juris Doctor, Harvard Law School, 1991 5 

Bachelor of Arts, Columbia University, 1988 6 

Family: Wife: Marie Louise Gorsuch 7 , 

Daughter: Emma Gorsuch 8 

Daughter: Belinda Gorsuch 9 

Career: Judge, 10 th Circuit Court of Appeals, (2006- present) 10 

Principal deputy to the associate attorney general and acting associate attorney general, Department of Justice, 

(2005-2006) 11 

Partner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evabs & Figel, (1995-2005) 12 

Clerk, Hon. Byron R. White and Anthony M. Kennedy, Supreme Court (1993-1994) 13 

Clerk, David B. Sentelle, U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1991-1992) 14 

Organizations: American Bar Association, member, 2002-present 15 

American Trial Lawyers Association, member, 2002-2006 16 

Republican National Lawyers Association, 17 2004 18 -2007 19 

New York Bar Association, member, 1992-present 20 

Colorado Bar Association, member, 1994 21 

District of Columbia Bar, member, 1997 22 - present 23 

1 Congressional Record, 7/20/06 

2 Federal Judicial Center, accessed 1/26/17 

3 Boulder County Colorado Property Records, accessed 1/27/17 




7 Denver Post, 6/21/06 





12 White House press release, 6/20/06 






18 Republican National Lawyers Association, via archive.org, accessed 1/27/17 

19 Republican National Lawyers Association, via archive.org, accessed 1/27/17 

20 New York Bar Association, accessed 1/27/17 

21 Who’s Who in American Law, 1/15/16 

22 Who’s Who in American Law, 1/15/16 

23 District of Columbia Bar Association, accessed 1/27/17 

17

Childhood and Education 

CHILDHOOD 

Gorsuch Was Raised In Denver. According to the Pueblo Chieftain, “Gorsuch is a Harvard law school graduate and 

worked in a Washington, D.C., law firm until about a year ago. He is the principal deputy to the associate attorney general, the 

third-ranking official at the Justice Department. The department has a key role in helping the president fill federal court 

vacancies. Gorsuch was raised in Denver and is a fourth-generation Coloradan.” [Pueblo Chieftain, 3/31/06] 

EDUCATION 

High School 

Gorsuch Graduated From Georgetown Prep In Washington, D.C. According to the Washington Post, “Gorsuch was 

born in Colorado and lives outside of Boulder with his wife, Louise, and two daughters. He’s a fan of outdoor sports — flyfishing 

and rowing — and said in the speech at Case Western Reserve than he was skiing when he received a phone call with 

the news of Scalia’s death in February. But he spent his formative years in Washington and graduated from Georgetown Prep. 

His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was picked by President Ronald Reagan as the first woman to head the Environmental 

Protection Agency, where she had a short and rocky tenure.” [Washington Post, 1/28/17] 

Competed In The National Forensics League Tournament. According to the Washington Post, “Harisha Bastiampillia of 

Wheaton High, Melissa Fuller of Woodward High; Neil Gorsuch of Georgetown Preparatory School and Shawn Hanna of 

Whitman High will represent the Maryland diocese at the National Catholic Forensics League tournament May 24-26 in Fort 

Lauderdale, Fla.” [Washington Post, 5/09/85] 

Columbia University 

Gorsuch Graduated From Columbia University. According to the Denver Post, “Along with a doctorate in legal 

philosophy from the University of Oxford, Gorsuch got a law degree from Harvard Law School. He got his undergraduate 

degree from Columbia University.” [Denver Post, 5/10/06] 

Harvard Law School 

Gorsuch Graduated From Harvard Law School. According to the Pueblo Chieftain, “Gorsuch is a Harvard law school 

graduate and worked in a Washington, D.C., law firm until about a year ago. He is the principal deputy to the associate 

attorney general, the third-ranking official at the Justice Department. The department has a key role in helping the president 

fill federal court vacancies. Gorsuch was raised in Denver and is a fourth-generation Coloradan.” [Pueblo Chieftain, 3/31/06] 

University Of Oxford 

Gorsuch Had A Doctorate In Legal Philosophy From The University Of Oxford. According to the Denver Post, 

“Along with a doctorate in legal philosophy from the University of Oxford, Gorsuch got a law degree from Harvard Law 

School. He got his undergraduate degree from Columbia University.” [Denver Post, 5/10/06] 

Family 

MOTHER- ANNE GORSUCH 

Colorado General Assembly 

18

Gorsuch’s Parents Both Served In The Colorado General Assembly. According to The Gazette, “Gorsuch is a 

Centennial State native. His mother and step-father were members of Colorado’s General Assembly; his late mom, Anne 

Gorsuch Burford, later stoked controversy as the combative director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the 

Reagan administration. Neil Gorsuch roundly receives high marks and glowing reviews from the legal community for his topdrawer 

credentials and command of jurisprudence.” [Gazette, 1/24/17] 

Gorsuch’s Mother Was A Conservative Colorado State Legislator And A States’ Rights Advocate. According to Los 

Angeles Times, “By contrast, Gorsuch does not have a record of strident comments that would fuel a fight. However, he 

knows firsthand the rough side of political battles. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was a conservative Colorado state 

legislator and a states’ rights advocate when President Reagan chose her in 1981 to lead the Environmental Protection 

Agency.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/24/17] 

Reagan Administration 

Anne Gorsuch Served As Director Of The EPA Under Ronald Reagan. According to the Washington Post, “Anne M. 

Gorsuch Burford, 62, the Environmental Protection Agency director who resigned under fire in 1983 during a scandal over 

mismanagement of a $1.6 billion program to clean up hazardous waste dumps, died of cancer July 18 at Aurora Medical 

Center in Colorado.” [Washington Post, 7/22/04] 

Anne Gorsuch Burford, Was The First Woman To Head The EPA. According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch was born 

in Colorado and lives outside of Boulder with his wife, Louise, and two daughters. He’s a fan of outdoor sports - fly-fishing 

and rowing - and said in the speech at Case Western Reserve than he was skiing when he received a phone call with the news 

of Scalia’s death in February. But he spent his formative years in Washington and graduated from Georgetown Prep. His 

mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was picked by President Ronald Reagan as the first woman to head the Environmental 


The Washington Post: Anne Gorsuch Burford, “Had A Short And Rocky Tenure” As Head The EPA. According to 

Washington Post, “Gorsuch was born in Colorado and lives outside of Boulder with his wife, Louise, and two daughters. He’s 

a fan of outdoor sports - fly-fishing and rowing - and said in the speech at Case Western Reserve than he was skiing when he 

received a phone call with the news of Scalia’s death in February. But he spent his formative years in Washington and 

graduated from Georgetown Prep. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was picked by President Ronald Reagan as the first 

woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency, where she had a short and rocky tenure.” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

1983: Anne Gorsuch Burford, Was Held In Contempt Of Congress For Refusing To Turn Over Documents. 

According to The Alestle: Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville, “By contrast, Gorsuch does not have a record of 

strident comments that would fuel a confirmation fight. However, he knows firsthand of the rough side of political battles. His 

mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was a conservative Colorado state legislator and a states’ rights advocate when former 

President Ronald Reagan chose her in 1981 to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. She was soon caught up in battles 

with environmentalists and Democrats on Capitol Hill who accused her of going soft on polluters. She was held in contempt 

of Congress in 1983 for refusing to turn over documents.” [Alestle: Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville, 1/26/17] 

1983: Anne Gorsuch Burford Was Forced To Resign During A Scandal Around Mismanagement Of Hazardous 

Waste Cleanup. According to the Washington Post, “Anne M. Gorsuch Burford, 62, the Environmental Protection Agency 

director who resigned under fire in 1983 during a scandal over mismanagement of a $1.6 billion program to clean up 

hazardous waste dumps, died of cancer July 18 at Aurora Medical Center in Colorado.” [Washington Post, 7/22/04] 

Death 

July 2004: Anne Gorsuch Burford Died Of Cancer. According to the Washington Post, “Anne M. Gorsuch Burford, 62, 

the Environmental Protection Agency director who resigned under fire in 1983 during a scandal over mismanagement of a 

$1.6 billion program to clean up hazardous waste dumps, died of cancer July 18 at Aurora Medical Center in Colorado.” 

[Washington Post, 7/22/04] 

19

WIFE- MARIE LOUISE GORSUCH 

Gorsuch Was Married To Marie Louise Gorsuch. According to the Denver Post, “During the hearing, Gorsuch's wife, 

Marie Louise, sat in the front row with their daughters, Emma, 6, and Belinda, 4, who wore matching pink dresses.” [Denver 

Post, 6/22/06] 

CHILDREN 

Gorsuch Had Two Daughters. According to the Denver Post, “During the hearing, Gorsuch's wife, Marie Louise, sat in the 

front row with their daughters.” [Denver Post, 6/22/06] 

Writing 

Gorsuch Wrote For National Review And The CATO Institute. According to the Pueblo Chieftain, “Gorsuch was raised 

in Denver and is a fourth-generation Coloradan. He has written articles for the National Review, a conservative magazine 

founded by Bill Buckley, and for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in the nation's capital.” [Pueblo Chieftain, 3/31/06] 

Ideology 

The Washington Post Noted Neil Gorsuch Resembled The Late Justice Scalia More Than Justice Kennedy In His 

Legal Philosophy. According to Washington Post, “There is a Supreme Court clerkship; Gorsuch was hired by Justice 

Byron White, a fellow Colorado native, who shared him with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Kennedy stood by that day in 

Denver to administer the judicial oath, and he might soon be welcoming his former charge to the empty chair at the end of the 

Supreme Court’s mahogany bench. But those who know Gorsuch and have studied his decade of solidly conservative opinions 

on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit say he more resembles the man he would replace - the late Justice Antonin 

Scalia - than the more moderate Kennedy. Like Scalia, Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism - meaning that judges should 

attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written - and a textualist who 

considers only the words of the law being reviewed, not legislators’ intent or the consequences of the decision. Critics say that 

those neutral considerations seem to always lead Gorsuch to conservative outcomes, a criticism that was also leveled at Scalia.” 


Neil Gorsuch Has Not Written Extensively On Social Issues Like Gun Control And Gay Rights. According to The 

New York Times, “Judge Gorsuch has not written extensively on other major social issues like gun control and gay rights, but 

his record could still provide ammunition for Democrats; he has called for limiting the power of federal regulators and has 

criticized liberals for turning to the courts rather than legislatures to achieve their policy goals.” [New York Times, 1/24/17] 

A Former Colleague Described Gorsuch As “Conservative.” According to the Denver Post, “Richard Westfall, a Denver 

lawyer who specializes in constitutional law, knows Gorsuch from the late 1980s, when both worked in a Washington law 

firm. Both were clerks for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White and have kept in touch. Westfall said Gorsuch is 

‘incredibly bright’ and characterized him as a ‘principled conservative,’ one who cares about people. ‘He’s conservative in 

views,’ Westfall said, ‘but very gracious and personable by disposition.’” [Denver Post, 5/10/06] 

Hobbies 

Gorsuch Was A Fan Of Outdoor Sports, Including Fly-Fishing And Rowing. According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch 

was born in Colorado and lives outside of Boulder with his wife, Louise, and two daughters. He’s a fan of outdoor sports - flyfishing 

and rowing - and said in the speech at Case Western Reserve than he was skiing when he received a phone call with the 

news of Scalia’s death in February. But he spent his formative years in Washington and graduated from Georgetown Prep. His 

20

mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was picked by President Ronald Reagan as the first woman to head the Environmental 


21

WEALTH 

Overview 

As of January 2017, American Bridge has obtained and analyzed Gorsuch’s personal financial disclosures to the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts from 2003 through 2015. 

Notable findings from collected resources include: 

✓During Gorsuch’s tenure as a circuit court judge, he earned a total salary of at least $2,092,100.. 

✓In 2015, Gorsuch’s assets were worth between $3.27 million and $7.57 million. He reported that in 2015 that his investment 

income was between $108,032 dollars and $359,500 dollars. 

Assets 

SALARY 

During Gorsuch’s Tenure As A Circuit Court Judge, He Earned A Total Salary Of At Least $2.09 Million 

2006 – Present: Gorsuch Served As A Judge For The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit. 

According to the tenth circuit court of appeals, “Judge Neil M. Gorsuch […] Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 

Circuit. Nominated by George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to a seat vacated by David M. Ebel; Confirmed by the Senate on 

July 20, 2006.”[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Accessed 1/26/17] 

2006 -2016: A U.S. Circuit Court Judge Would Of Earned A Total Salary Of $2,092,100 

2006 – 2007: The U.S. Court System Reported That Circuit Court Judges Receive A Yearly Salary Of $175,100 

Dollars. [Judicial Compensation, U.S. Courts, Accessed 1/26/17] 

2008: The U.S. Court System Reported That Circuit Court Judges Receive A Yearly Salary Of $179,500 Dollars. 

[Judicial Compensation, U.S. Courts, Accessed 1/26/17] 

2009 - 2013: The U.S. Court System Reported That Circuit Court Judges Receive A Yearly Salary Of $184,500 Dollars. 








From 2006 Through 2015, Gorsuch Earned Over $3.4 Million In Outside Income 

22

2006 – 2015: Gorsuch Earned $3.44 Million Dollars In Outside Income From Teaching, Book Royalties And An 

Agreement With His Old Law Firm. According to his personal financial disclosures, from 2006 through 2015, Gorsuch 

earned $3,446,528.61 dollars from the University of Colorado Law School, Princeton University, Oklahoma City University 

School of Law and Kellogg Huber et. al. from teaching, book royalties and an agreement with his firm. [Financial Disclosure 

Report, “I. Positions,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States Court, Neil M. 

Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16, 9/22/15, 11/5/14, 8/5/13, 8/13/12, 8/3/11, 8/2/10, 5/14/09, 4/28/08 & 8/23/07] 

Reporting Period Source Payment Type Income 

2015 Princeton University Press Book royalties $304.94 

2015 University of Colorado Law Teaching $26,000.00 

School 

2015 West Publishing Corporation Book royalties $5,000.00 

2014 Princeton University Book royalties $304.94 


School 

2014 University of Colorado Law Back pay $3,000.00 

School 



School 



School 



School 



School 

2010 Oklahoma City University School Teaching $2,500.00 

of Law 


School 


2009 Kellogg Huber et. al. Agreement $2,506,485.00 



School 

2007 Kellogg Huber et. al. Agreement $77,370.00 

2007 Princeton University Book royalties $1,079.00 

2006 Kellogg Huber et. al. Agreement $697,148.00 

Total: $3,446,528.61 

[Financial Disclosure Report, “I. Positions,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States 

Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16, 9/22/15, 11/5/14, 8/5/13, 8/13/12, 8/3/11, 8/2/10, 5/14/09, 4/28/08 & 

8/23/07] 

ASSETS 

In 2015, Gorsuch Reported That His Assets Were Worth At Least $3.27 Million 

In 2015, Gorsuch’s Assets Were Worth Between $3.27 Million Dollars And $7.57 Million Dollars. According to 

Gorsuch’s 2015 financial disclosure, he reported that his assets were worth between $3,270,046 dollars and $7,575,000 dollars. 

23

[Financial Disclosure Report, “VII. Investments and Trusts,” Neil M. Gorsuch, Committee on Financial Disclosure, 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Filed 8/11/16] 

In 2015, Gorsuch Had A Reported Investment Income Of At Least $108,032 Dollars. According to Gorsuch’s 2015 

financial disclosure, he reported that his investment income was between $108,032 dollars and $359,500 dollars. [Financial 

Disclosure Report, “VII. Investments and Trusts,” Neil M. Gorsuch, Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts, Filed 8/11/16] 

Reimbursements & Gifts 

SINCE 2007, GORSUCH TOOK OVER 30 SPONSORED TRIPS 

2007 – 2015: Gorsuch Took 30 Sponsored Domestic Trips. According to Gorsuch’s financial disclosure, from 2007 

through 2015, while serving as a judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of the U.S. Court of Appeals, he took 30 domestic trips to 

cities such as: Washington D.C, Tallahassee, FL, Los Angeles, CA, New Haven, CT, Princeton, NJ, Cambridge, MA and 

Chicago, IL. These trips were paid for by: Federal Judge Association, University of Chicago Law School, Harry Truman 

Foundation of the U.S. Government, Federalist Society, Oklahoma City University School of Law and Various Law Schools 

Federalist Society’s. [Financial Disclosure Report, “IV. Reimbursements,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative 

Office of the United States Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16, 9/22/15, 11/5/14, 8/5/13, 8/13/12, 8/3/11, 8/2/10, 

5/14/09 & 4/28/08] 

2015: The American College Of Trial Lawyers Sponsored Gorsuch Trip To London, England. According to Gorsuch’s 

financial disclosure, from September 3, 2015 through September 11, 2015, The American College of Trial Lawyers paid for 

Gorsuch’s transportation, meals, program and hotel during an unknown educational program. [Financial Disclosure Report, 

“IV. Reimbursements,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States Court, Neil M. 

Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16] 

Gorsuch’s reimbursements are detailed below: 

Date Source Location Purpose Items Paid/Provided 

7/2/2015 – 

7/6/2015 

Renaissance Weekend Jackson Hole, 

WY 

Educational 

Program 

Meals, Program, hotel 

(self and family) 

9/3/2015 – 

9/11/2015 

American College of 

Trial Lawyers-Legal 

Exchange 

London, England Educational 

Program 

Transportation, meals, 

program, hotel (self 

and spouse) 

10/29/2014 – 

10/31/2014 

University of Chicago 

Visiting Committee 

Chicago, IL Educational 

Program 


hotel 

5/3/2014 – 

5/4/2014 

Federal Judges 

Association 

Washington, DC Meeting Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

4/6/2014 – 

4/8/2014 

New York University New York City, 

NY 

Educational 

Program 


hotel 

4/10/2013 – 

4/12/2013 

University of Illinois Champaign, IL Educational 

Program 


hotel 

4/24/2013 – 

4/25/2013 


Association 


hotel 

11/15/2013 – 

12/10/2013 

Federalist Society Washington, DC Educational 

Program 


hotel 

12/8/2013 – 

12/10/2013 

Yale University New Haven, CT Educational 

Program 


hotel 

11/15/2012 – 

11/18/2012 

Federalist Society Washington, DC Law Conference Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

4/26/2012 – Chaves County Bar Roswell, NM Law Day Transportation, meals, 

24

4/27/2012 Association Lecture hotel 

4/3/2012 – 

4/5/2012 

Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA Educational 

Program 


hotel 

4/12/2011 – 

4/14/2011 


Association 


hotel 

3/31/2011 – 

4/2/2011 

University of Texas 

Law School 

Austin, TX Educational 

Conference 


hotel 

9/8/2011 – 

9/10/2011 

University of Notre 

Dame Law School 

South Bend, IN Conference Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

5/22/2010 – 

5/26/2010 


Association 

Washington, 

D.C. 

Conference Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

4/21/2010 – 

4/23/2010 


School of Law 

Chicago, IL Moot Court Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

4/6/2010 – 

4/8/2010 

University of Michigan 

Law School 

Ann Arbor, MI Moot Court Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

2/9/2010 – 

2/12/2010 

Oklahoma City 

University School of 

Oklahoma City, 

OK 

Teaching Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

Law 

12/14/2009 – Federal Bar Association Oklahoma City Talk Transportation, Meals 

12/15/2009 

4/16/2009 – 

4/18/2009 

Princeton University 

Witherspoon Institute 

Princeton, NJ Conference Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

3/5/2009 – 

3/6/2009 

USC Law School Los Angeles, CA Moot Court Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

2/4/2009 – 

2/5/2009 

Yale Law School 

Federalist Society 

New Haven, CT Talk Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

10/23/2008 Federal Bar Association 

of Oklahoma City 

Oklahoma City Appellate 

Advocacy Panel 


hotel 

5/2/2008 – Florida State University Tallahassee, FL Commencement Transportation, meals, 

5/3/2008 

4/17/2008 – 

4/19/2008 

11/15/2007 – 

11/17/2007 

9/27/2007 – 

9/30/2007 

7/8/2007 – 

7/11/2007 

6/5/2007 – 

6/6/2007 

Law School 

Federalist Society of 


Law School & 

University of Michigan 

Law School 

Wake Forest Law 

School 

Federal Judicial Center 

Chicago, IL & 

Ann Arbor, MI 

Winston Salem, 

NC 

Washington, 

D.C. 

New York, NY 

Speech 

Speeches 

Moot Court 

Appellate Judge 

Training 

Training for 

new judges 

Award & 

scholars seminar 

hotel 


hotel 


hotel 


hotel 


hotel 


hotel 

NYU Program for new 

appellate judges 

Harry Truman Washington, 

Foundation of U.S. D.C. 

Government 

Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA Moot court Transportation, meals, 

hotel 

3/20/2007 – 

3/22/2007 

[Financial Disclosure Report, “IV. Reimbursements,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United 

States Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16, 9/22/15, 11/5/14, 8/5/13, 8/13/12, 8/3/11, 8/2/10, 5/14/09 & 4/28/08] 

DURING HIS TENURE ON THE BENCH, GORSUCH REPORTED THAT HE 

RECEIVED GIFTS WORTH OVER $2,000 DOLLARS 

25

2007 – 2012: Gorsuch Reported That He Received Three Gifts That Were Worth A Total Of $2,075 Dollars. 

According to Gorsuch’s personal financial disclosures, from 2007 through 2012, he reported that he received three gifts from 

Michael Trent, Canon & Lyndia Harvey and Jim Weinstein that were worth a total of $2,075 dollars. [Financial Disclosure 

Report, “V. Gifts,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, 

Filed 8/13/12, 5/14/09 & 4/28/08] 

Gorsuch’s reported gifts are detailed below: 

Reporting Year Source Description Value 

2012 Michael Trent Hospitality $1,175.00 

2008 Canon & Lyndia Harvey Hospitality $400.00 

2007 Jim Weinstein Piece of artwork, gift 

related to investiture 

$500.00 

Total $2,075.00 

[Financial Disclosure Report, “V. Gifts,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States 

Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, Filed 8/13/12, 5/14/09 & 4/28/08] 

Positions 

SINCE 2006, GORSUCH REPORTED THAT HE HAS HELD 6 OUTSIDE 

EXECUTIVE POSITIONS 

2006 – 2015: Gorsuch Reported That He Held Executive Positions With 6 Organizations And Corporations. 

According to Gorsuch’s financial disclosures, from 2012 through 2015, he served as a member for one LLC, two professional 

organizations, two educational institutes and as a member of the board of directors for a private school. [Financial Disclosure 

Report, “I. Positions,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States Court, Neil M. 

Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16, 9/22/15, 11/5/14, 8/5/13, 8/13/12, 8/3/11, 8/2/10, 5/14/09, 4/28/08 and 8/23/07] 

Gorsuch’s positions are detailed below: 

Reporting Year Position Name of Organization 

2015 Member Walden Group LLC 

2015 Executive Committee, Board of Federal Judges Association 

Directors 

2015 Adjunct Professor University of Colorado Law School 

2015 Member University of Chicago Law School’s 




Directors 


2014 Member University of Chicago Law School’s 


2013 Member Colorado Chief Justice’s Commission on 

the Legal Profession 

2013 Member, Board of Directors Boulder Country Day School 



Directors 





26



Directors 




Directors 







Directors 


2010 Visiting Jurist Oklahoma City University School of Law 



Directors 





[Financial Disclosure Report, “I. Positions,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States 

Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16, 9/22/15, 11/5/14, 8/5/13, 8/13/12, 8/3/11, 8/2/10, 5/14/09, 4/28/08 and 

8/23/07] 

The Walden Group LLC 

2005: The Walden Group LLC Was Registered With The Colorado Secretary Of State. On October 11, 2005, The 

Walden Group LLC was registered with the Colorado Secretary of State by Cannon Y. Harvey and registered that it was to be 

based at 236 Dexter Street in Denver, Colorado. [Articles of Organization, “The Walden Group,” Colorado Secretary of State, 

Filed 10/11/05] 

2006 – 2015: Gorsuch Served As A Manager For The Walden Group LLC. [Financial Disclosure Report, “I. Positions,” 

Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, Filed 8/11/16, 

9/22/15, 11/5/14, 8/5/13, 8/13/12, 8/3/11, 8/2/10, 5/14/09, 4/28/08 and 8/23/07] 

For The Past Twenty Years, Harvey Has Served As The President Of Anschutz Investment Company 

2005 – Present: Cannon Harvey Served As The Registered Agent For The Walden Group LLC. According to the 

Colorado Secretary of State’s website, since October 11, 2005, Cannon Y. Harvey has served as the registered agent for the 

Walden Group LLC. [Details, “Walden Group LLC,” Colorado Secretary of State, Accessed 1/27/17] 

1996 – Present: Cannon Y. Harvey Served As The President And Chief Operating Officer Of Anschutz Investment 

Company. According to AFX, “Cannon Harvey have decided not to stand for re-election at the company's annual meeting. 

Anschutz, Qwest's founder, served as non-executive chairman until June 2002 and is chairman of the Anschutz Corp. Harvey 

has served as president and chief operating officer of Anschutz Co. and the Anschutz Corp. since December 1996, according 

to Qwest.”[AFX-Asia, 2/28/06; Bloomberg, Accessed 1/27/17] 

27

28

CAREER AS AN ATTORNEY 

Section Overview: 

Most of Gorsuch’s career was spent in Washington, D.C. 

From 2005 to 2006 Gorsuch served on the Department of Justice’s intellectual property taskforce and as the principal 

deputy to the associate attorney general, helping manage the Justice Department’s civil litigation. 

Between 1995 and 2005, Gorsuch worked at the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evabs, & Figel. 

Between 1991 and 1994, Gorsuch held two clerkships, one at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit for Judge Sentelle, and two at the Supreme Court where he was shared by Justices White and Kennedy 

Bar Association Memberships 

SINCE 1992, GORSUCH HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF TWO STATE BAR 

ASSOCIATIONS 

New York 

1992 – Present: Gorsuch Is A Member Of The New York State Bar Association. According to the New York Unified 

Court system, from 1992 through the present, Neil McGill Gorsuch has been a member of the New York State bar, with 

registration number 2482370. [New York Unified Court System, Accessed 1/31/17] 

Colorado 

1994: Gorsuch Was Admitted To The Colorado Bar Association. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, on July 5, 

1994, Neil M. Gorsuch was admitted to the Colorado state bar association. [Colorado Supreme Court, Accessed 1/31/17] 

Presently, Gorsuch’s Colorado Law License Is “Inactive” As A Member Of The Bench. [Colorado Supreme Court, 

Accessed 1/31/17] 

Career Spent Almost Entirely In Washington, DC 

Denver Post: Gorsuch “Spent Most Of His Career Was A Lawyer In Washington, D.C.” According to the Denver Post, 

“One of the criticisms that Gorsuch could face is his lack of ties to Colorado. Gorsuch was born and raised in Denver but 

spent most of his career as a lawyer in Washington, D.C., before joining the U.S. Justice Department in 2005.” [Denver Post, 

5/09/06] 

1991- 1994: Clerkships 

1993-1994: Gorsuch Was A Supreme Court Clerk. According to the Federal Judicial Center, “Professional Career: Law 

clerk, Hon. David B. Sentelle, U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1991-1992 Law clerk, Hon. Byron 

R. White and Anthony M. Kennedy, Supreme Court of the United States, 1993-1994 Private practice, 1995-2005 Principal 

deputy to the associate attorney general and acting associate attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005-2006” [Federal 

Judicial Center, accessed 1/26/17] 

29

Neil Gorsuch Clerked For Justice Anthony Kennedy. According to Star-News, “Gorsuch is the closest on Trump s 

list to a Washington insider the son of former EPA administrator Anne Gorsuch , educated in the Ivy League and at 

Oxford, law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy and Bush-era Justice Department official. His opinions and outside 

writings, praised for their clear, colloquial style, include a call for courts to second-guess government regulations, defense 

of religious freedom and skepticism toward law enforcement.” [Star-News, 1/25/17] 

Neil Gorsuch Clerked For Justice Byron White. According to Denver Business Journal, “Gorsuch , 49, clerked for 

Judge David B. Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Supreme Court justices Byron 

White and Anthony Kennedy. He attended Harvard Law School, and has a Ph.D. from Oxford, where he was a Marshall 

Scholar.” [Denver Business Journal, 1/24/17] 

1991-1992: Gorsuch Was Clerk For Judge Sentelle On The U.S. Court of Appeals For The District of Columbia. 

According to the Federal Judicial Center, “Professional Career: Law clerk, Hon. David B. Sentelle, U. S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit, 1991-1992 Law clerk, Hon. Byron R. White and Anthony M. Kennedy, Supreme Court of the 

United States, 1993-1994 Private practice, 1995-2005 Principal deputy to the associate attorney general and acting associate 

attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005-2006” [Federal Judicial Center, accessed 1/26/17] 

University Of Colorado Law School 

Gorsuch Taught At The University Of Colorado’s Law School In Boulder. According to AP, “He is the son of The son 

of President Ronald Reagan’s Environmental Protection Agency chief, Anne Gorsuch . He worked for two years in Bush’s 

Justice Department before Bush appointed him to his appeals court seat. He was confirmed by a voice vote in 2006. Gorsuch 

has written 175 majority opinions and 65 concurrences or dissents in his decade on the 10th Circuit, according to Rebecca 

Love Kourlis, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice. Gorsuch also is a notable advocate for simplifying the justice system 

to make it more accessible, Kourlis said. Gorsuch is also an avid skier, fly fisherman and horseback rider, Kourlis said. He 

teaches at the University of Colorado’s law school in Boulder.” [AP, 1/29/17] 

1995- 2005: Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel 

FOR TEN YEARS, GORSUCH SERVED AS A PARTNER & AN ASSOCIATE FOR 

KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS AND FIGEL 

1995: Gorsuch Joined Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans, and Figel. According to the Washington Post, “When 

Neil came to our firm in 1995, he had gray hair,’ said the law partner, Mark C. Hansen. ‘In fact, he was born with silver hair, as 

well as an inexhaustible store of Winston Churchill quotes.”[Washington Post, 1/28/17] 

1998: Gorsuch Became A Partner At The Firm. According to the Alliance for Justice, “Supreme Court Justice Byron White 

and Justice Anthony Kennedy. From 1995-2005, Mr. Gorsuch worked at the firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & 

Figel, where he became a partner in 1998.”[Alliance for Justice, “Gorsuch Report,” Accessed 1/31/17] 

2005: Gorsuch Left The Firm To Work For The U.S. Department Of Justice. According to the Denver Post, “Gorsuch 

was born and raised in Denver but spent most of his career as a lawyer in Washington, D.C., before joining the U.S. Justice 

Department in 2005.”[Denver Post, 6/16/06] 

Gorsuch Maintained An Interest In The Firm Until 2009 

2005 – 2009: Gorsuch Had An Agreement With The Firm That Allowed Him To Maintain An Interest In Certain 

Contingency Cases. According to Gorsuch’s 2009 financial disclosure, “Parties and Terms: Kellogg, Huber, et. al. -I retained 

an interest in certain contingency cases in recognition of legal services I rendered while at the firm.”[Financial Disclosure 

30

Report, “II-Agreements,” Neil M. Gorsuch, Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts, Filed 8/2/10] 

2006 – 2009: Gorsuch Reported That He Received $3.2 Million Dollars From This Agreement. According to Gorsuch’s 

personal financial disclosure, from 2006 through 2009, he reported that he received $3,281,003 dollars from Kellogg Huber et. 

al. [Financial Disclosure Report, “I. Positions,” Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the United States 

Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, Filed 8/2/10, 5/14/09, 4/28/08 & 8/23/07] 

Focused On Corporate Law 

Gorsuch Focused On Commercial Law. According to information entered into the Congressional Record by Senator Arlen 

Specter, “In 1995, Mr. Gorsuch joined the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, where he served 

as an associate until 1997 and as partner from 1998 to 2005. At Kellogg, he handled a wide range of commercial matters, 

including contracts, antitrust, RICO, and securities fraud. [Congressional Record, 7/20/06] 

University of Colorado: Gorsuch “Specialized In Complex Litigation” Including Antitrust, Securities Fraud, And 

“Fiduciary Duty To Telecommunications.” According to Gorsuch’s profile for the University of Colorado’s Law School, 

“He then entered private practice where he was a partner at the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, 

and specialized in complex litigation. His matters ranged from antitrust to securities fraud, fiduciary duty to 

telecommunications. He regularly represented both plaintiffs and defendants, and his clients included individuals, non-profits, 

class actions, small companies, as well as Fortune 500 companies.” [University of Colorado, accessed 1/31/17] 

Helped Secure The Largest Antitrust Award In U.S. History 

Gorsuch Helped Secure The Largest Antitrust Award In History. According to the Washington Post, “After his Supreme 

Court clerkship, Gorsuch joined the D.C. law firm Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel, where he developed a taste 

for litigation and eventually became a partner. He helped secure what his former law partner Hansen said was the largest 

antitrust award in history and won praise for his courtroom style.” [Washington Post, 1/28/17] 

The cases that Gorsuch served as counsel for are detailed below: 

Date Gorsuch’s Client Case Name Case Number 

1/6/2009 Columbia Hospital for Women Medical Ncric, Inc. v. Columbia 1:09cv16 

Center 

Hospital For Women 

Medical Center, Inc. et al 

6/10/2005 Alberto R. Gonzales Wei v. Gonzales 05-9546 

8/5/2004 Sbc Communications, Inc Z-Tel Communications, 

Inc v. Sbc 

Communications, Inc et 

1:04cv2297 

6/21/2004 Sbc Communications Inc, Ameritech 

Corporation, 

Pacific Telesis Group, Illinois Bell 

Telephone Company, 

Indiana Bell Telephone Company 

Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone 

Company, Nevada Bell Telephone 

Company, Ohio Bell Telephone 

Company, Pacific Bell Telephone 

Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc, 

Southwestern Bell Telephone, LP, 

al 

Z-Tel Communications, 

Inc v. Sbc 

Communications Inc 

3:04mc133 

31


Corporation, 










Z-Tel Commc Inc v. Sbc 

Commc Inc, et al 

5/28/2004 Z-Tel Communications, Inc Z Tel Communications v. 

Sbc Communications 

5/18/2004 Philip F Anschutz et. al. Teachers Retirement 

System of Louisiana vs 

Philip F Anschutz et al 

1/5/2004 Chamber of Commerce of the United 

States 


Corporation, 










Dura Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., et al., Petitioners v. 

Michael Broudo, et al. 

Z-Tel Communications v. 

Sbc Communications, et 

al 

5/8/2003 Morgan Stanley & Company Inc, Coleman Parent Holdings 

Inc, et al v. Unknown 

12/10/2002 Nacchio, Joseph Woodruff, Robert S 

Szeliga 

9/13/2002 Sbc Communications Inc, Southern 

New England Telephone Co Consol, 

Southern New England 

Telecommunications Corp Consol 

California State Teachers' 

Retirement System Vs. 

Qwest Communications 

International Inc. et al 

Twombly v. Sbc 

Communications, et al 

4/26/2002 Orbitz Llc Albany Travel Co, et al v. 

Orbitz Llc, et al 

4/22/2002 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater, Tabacoff, et al v. Qwest 

Comm Intl Inc, et al 

4/17/2002 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Wollman, et al v. Qwest 


4/3/2002 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Abdelnour, et al v. Qwest 


3/13/2002 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Barry, et al v. Qwest 


2/25/2002 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Brody, et al v. Qwest 


2/19/2002 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Herbert S Cohen Trus, et 

al v. Qwest Comm Intl 

Inc, et al 

1:04cv3737 

1:04cv3735 

CA444 

03-932 

5:03cv229 

502003CA005045XXOCAI 

CGC-02-415546 

3:02cv1617 

2:02cv3459 

1:02cv798 

1:02cv755 

1:02cv658 

1:02cv507 

1:02cv374 

1:02cv333 

32

1/14/2002 Time Warner National Satellite v. Time 

Warner 

10/22/2001 Cannon Y Harvey, Philip F Anschutz, Troch, et al v. Anschutz, 

Craig D Slater, 

et al 

10/1/2001 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Tanner, et al v. Qwest 


9/14/2001 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Cline, et al v. Qwest 


9/7/2001 Council of Institutional Investors Robert J. Devlin, 

Petitioner v. Robert A. 

Scardelletti, et al. 

8/16/2001 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Grady, et al v. Qwest 


8/6/2001 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Urquhart, et al v. Qwest 


7/31/2001 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater Stanton Disc Pharm, et al 

v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, 

et al 

7/27/2001 Philip F Anschutz, Craig D Slater New England Health, et 

al v. Qwest Comm Intl 

Inc, et al 

6/28/2001 Terra Museum For The Arts Terra Foundation, et al v. 

Perkins, et al 

6/11/2001 Verizon Delaware, Inc, et. al. Verizon Delaware, Inc et 

al v. Covad 

Communications 

Company et al 

10/3/2000 Columbia Hospital For Women NCRIC INC Vs. 

COLUMBIA 

HOSPITAL FOR 

WOMEN 

9/26/2000 Conwood Sales Co, Conwood Co LP Conwood Co LP, et al v. 

US Tobacco Co, et al 

5/12/2000 Hyatt Corporation Natl Office Partners, et al 

v. Hyatt Corporation 

1/28/1999 Conwood Sales Co, Conwood Co LP Conwood Company, Lp, 

et al v. US Tobacco 

Company, et al 

4/22/1998 Conwood Company L.P. Conwood Co L P, et al v. 

United St Tobacco Co, et 

al 

1/12/1998 Bell Atlantic Corporation, Bell Atlantic Online Yellow Pages, v. 

Directory Services, Inc, 

Bell Atlantic, Inc, et al 

10/6/1997 Bell Atlantic Corporation, 

Gte New Media Svc in v. 

Bell Atlantic Electronic Commerce Ameritech Corp, et al 

Services, Incorporated, Bell Atlantic 

Directory Services, Inc, 

8/25/1997 Juan Stevens and Bruce Allen, on Behalf 

of Themselves And as Class 

Representatives 

Plaintiff 

Stevens, et al v. H&R 

Block, Inc, et al 

1:02cv346 

1:01cv2083 

1:01cv1930 

1:01cv1799 

01-417 

1:01cv1616 

1:01cv1527 

1:01cv1472 

1:01cv1451 

1:01cv4976 

5:01cv20524 

2000 CA 007308 B 

00-6267 

1:00cv478 

2:99mc33 

5:98cv108 

2:98cv74 

1:97cv2314 

4:97cv245 

6/20/1997 Zachair, Limited Zachair Ltd v. Driggs 97-1811 

4/7/1997 David J Bickerstaff and David J Goff, et al v. Ford Motor 2:97cv341 

Bickerstaff And Associates, Inc Company, et al 

33

11/2/1995 Tracy Buford, on Behalf of Herself And 

Others Similarly Situated, Robert H 

Bacon, April N Coley, Jamil Parker 

5/26/1994 Robert F. Wise, Jr. and Lawrence J. 

Portnoy 

[Courtlink, “Neil M. Gorsuch,” accessed 1/30/17] 

Jones, et al v. H&R Block 

Tax, et al 

Knisley, et al v. Kidder 

Peabody & Co, et al 

4:95cv268 

1:94cv3954 

NOTABLE CLIENTS AND CASES 

Philip Anschutz 

Philip Anschutz Was A Billionaire Who Owned Oil, Gas, Real Estate, Railroads, Telecommunications, And 

Entertainment Companies. According to the New Yorker, “Philip Anschutz, who is seventy-two, owns A.E.G. and has an 

estimated net worth of seven billion dollars, according to Forbes. He has made his fortune in oil and gas, real estate, railroads, 

telecommunications, and sports and entertainment. He is one of the largest landowners in the U.S., and his empire of more 

than a hundred and fifty companies, nearly all privately held, is worldwide.” [New Yorker, 1/16/12] 

Qwest Communications 

Philip Anschutz Owned Qwest Communications, A Telecom Corporation. According to Fortune, “Don't be surprised if 

you've never heard of Anschutz. "I'm better not operating at center stage," he once confided. But you have, in one way or 

another, experienced his handiwork. He found one of the biggest U.S. oil fields since Prudhoe Bay; he owns more farm and 

cattle land than almost any other individual in the country; he bought, fixed, and resold the Southern Pacific Railroad; he owns 

a stake in most of the professional sports teams in Los Angeles; and he started Qwest Communications, one of the nation's 

newest, biggest telecom companies.” [Fortunes, 9/06/99] 

Gorsuch Represented Anschutz In Litigation Against Qwest 12 Times. [Tabacoff, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, 

case no. 1:02cv798; Wollman, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, case no. 1:02cv755; Abdelnour, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl 

Inc, et al, case no. 1:02cv658; Barry, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, case no. 1:02cv507; Brody, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl 

Inc, et al, case no. 1:02cv374; Herbert S Cohen Trus, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, case no. 1:02cv333; Tanner, et al v. 

Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, case no. 1:01cv1930; Cline, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, case no. 1:01cv1799; Grady, et al 

v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, case no. 1:01cv1616; Urquhart, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, 1:01cv1527; Stanton Disc 

Pharm, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, case no. 1:01cv1472; New England Health, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al, 

case no. 1:01cv1451] 

Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana V. Philip F Anschutz et. al. 

Gorsuch Represented Anschutz And Other Regal Entertainment Group Shareholders In A Suit Against Regal 

Entertainment Seeking “A $710 Million Extraordinary Dividend Payment” To Shareholders. According to the 

Associated Press “A Delaware Chancery Court judge on Tuesday denied a request for a preliminary injunction to halt a $710 

million extraordinary dividend payment to Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz and other shareholders of Regal 

Entertainment Group. […] ‘This company is what some analysts call a cash cow,’ defense attorney Neil Gorsuch told 

Chandler.” [Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

The Teachers’ Retirement System Of Louisiana Brought An Injunction Against The Payout, Claimed The Payment 

Would Increase The Company’s Debt. According to the Associated Press “After hearing more than three hours of 

arguments, Chancellor William Chandler III denied the injunction request from the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, 

which owns about 1,500 shares of Regal stock. […] The teachers' retirement system argued that by using borrowed money for 

the dividend, Regal's board of directors was jeopardizing the financial future of the company, the largest motion picture 

exhibitor in the world. Plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Grant argued that the board of directors did not adequately review or 

understand the dividend proposal before approving it. […] The plaintiffs argued that the extraordinary dividend will increase 

34

Regal's net debt to more than $2 billion while paying Anschutz, who owns a 57 percent stake in the company, $368 million.” 

[Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

 

The Teachers’ Retirement System Of Louisiana Owned 1,500 Shares Of Regal Stock. According to the Associated 

Press, “After hearing more than three hours of arguments, Chancellor William Chandler III denied the injunction request 

from the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, which owns about 1,500 shares of Regal stock. […] The teachers' 

retirement system argued that by using borrowed money for the dividend, Regal's board of directors was jeopardizing the 

financial future of the company, the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world. Plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Grant argued 

that the board of directors did not adequately review or understand the dividend proposal before approving it. […] The 

plaintiffs argued that the extraordinary dividend will increase Regal's net debt to more than $2 billion while paying 

Anschutz, who owns a 57 percent stake in the company, $368 million.” [Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

Anschutz, Was Slated To Receive $368 Million In the Buyout. “After hearing more than three hours of arguments, 

Chancellor William Chandler III denied the injunction request from the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, which 

owns about 1,500 shares of Regal stock. Chandler said he found no evidence that Anschutz and other Regal directors, who 

together will receive the lion's share of the dividend, breached their fiduciary duties in approving the $5-per-share payment. 

‘There is absolutely no evidence, not a shred of evidence, that Mr. Anschutz and his affiliates ... have received anything to the 

exclusion of other shareholders,’ Chandler said. ‘... The idea for the dividend did not even originate with Anschutz.’ […] The 

plaintiffs argued that the extraordinary dividend will increase Regal's net debt to more than $2 billion while paying Anschutz, 

who owns a 57 percent stake in the company, $368 million.” [Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

Conwood Company 

Conwood Company Produced Smokeless Tobacco. According to the Wall Street Journal, ‘UST Inc. must pay a $1.05 

billion antitrust verdict following the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the massive award made by a lower court to the giant 

tobacco maker’s biggest smokeless-tobacco competitor. The high court’s decision leaves in place a ruling last May by a panel 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which affirmed the award to Conwood Co., Memphis, Tenn., 

the second-biggest player in the snuff market. The judgment represents a huge win for Chicago’s Pritzker family, which has 

owned 100% of Conwood since 1985.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/14/03] 

 

Gorsuch Repeatedly Represented Conwood. [Conwood Co L P, et al v. United St Tobacco Co, et al, case no. 

5:98cv108; Conwood Company, Lp, et al v. US Tobacco Company, et al, case no. 2:99mc33; Conwood Co LP, et al v. US 

Tobacco Co, et al, case no. 00-6267] 

Conwood Won The Largest Antitrust Verdict Ever In Case Against US Tobacco. According to the Wall Street Journal, 

“Conwood charged in a 1998 lawsuit that UST, among other things, violated antitrust law by manipulating retailers’ product 

displays, including discarding Conwood racks. A Kentucky jury ordered UST to pay $350 million in damages, an amount that 

was automatically tripled under antitrust law. Experts said the $1.05 billion total is possibly the largest verdict ever to be 

upheld under antitrust law.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/14/03] 

NCRIC Inc. V. Columbia Hospital For Women 

Gorsuch Represented Columbia Hospital For Women. According to the Washington Post, “A D.C. Superior Court jury 

awarded the defunct Columbia Hospital for Women Medical Center $18.2 million in damages, agreeing with the hospital that a 

malpractice insurance company had overcharged for premiums and encouraged doctors to practice elsewhere. Officials for the 

insurer, NCRIC Group Inc., said that the verdict, if upheld, could threaten its viability. A failure by NCRIC could force many 

of the doctors it covers to leave the District, a company official said. The jury rejected claims by NCRIC in a 2000 lawsuit that 

Columbia had failed to pay $3 million in premiums and interest. The hospital denied the allegation, counterclaiming that it was 

owed damages by NCRIC. NCRIC denied those allegations. The 136-year-old hospital closed in May 2002, citing severe 

financial problems. Columbia attorney Neil M. Gorsuch said of the verdict, returned on Friday: ‘We feel that justice was done 

and are gratified that the jury, after a 21/2-week trial and significant deliberations, rendered a verdict con-firming that NCRIC 

tortiously interfered with the operations of Columbia Hospital for Women.’” [Washington Post, 2/18/04] 

35

2004: Columbia Hospital For Women Won $18.2 Million In Damages From A Malpractice Insurance Company That 

Overcharged Them. According to the Washington Post, “A D.C. Superior Court jury awarded the defunct Columbia 

Hospital for Women Medical Center $18.2 million in damages, agreeing with the hospital that a malpractice insurance 

company had overcharged for premiums and encouraged doctors to practice elsewhere. Officials for the insurer, NCRIC 

Group Inc., said that the verdict, if upheld, could threaten its viability. A failure by NCRIC could force many of the doctors it 

covers to leave the District, a company official said. The jury rejected claims by NCRIC in a 2000 lawsuit that Columbia had 

failed to pay $3 million in premiums and interest. The hospital denied the allegation, counterclaiming that it was owed damages 

by NCRIC. NCRIC denied those allegations. The 136-year-old hospital closed in May 2002, citing severe financial problems. 

Columbia attorney Neil M. Gorsuch said of the verdict, returned on Friday: ‘We feel that justice was done and are gratified 

that the jury, after a 21/2-week trial and significant deliberations, rendered a verdict con-firming that NCRIC tortiously 

interfered with the operations of Columbia Hospital for Women.’” [Washington Post, 2/18/04] 

2005- 2006: Department Of Justice 

GORSUCH SERVED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY TASKFORCE 

October 2005: Gorsuch Was Appointed To The Justice Department’s Intellectual Property Taskforce. According to a 

press release from the Department of Justice, “The Attorney General has appointed the following Department of Justice 

officials to serve on the Intellectual Property Task Force: Thomas Barnett, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust 

Division Michael Battle, Director, Executive Office of United States Attorneys Rachel Brand, Assistant Attorney General, 

Office of Legal Policy Paul Clement, Solicitor General of the United States Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal 

Division Neil Gorsuch, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General, Office of the Associate Attorney General Peter Keisler, 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs Louis 

Reigel, Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Cyber Division Debra Wong Yang, United States Attorney, 

Central District of California, and Chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Subcommittee on Cyber Crime and Intellectual 

Property.” [Department of Justice, 10/28/05] 

GORSUCH SERVED AS THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY TO THE ASSOCIATE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Gorsuch Was The Principal Deputy To The Associate Attorney General. According to the Pueblo Chieftain, “Gorsuch 

is a Harvard law school graduate and worked in a Washington, D.C., law firm until about a year ago. He is the principal deputy 

to the associate attorney general, the third-ranking official at the Justice Department.” [Pueblo Chieftain, 3/31/06] 

Gorsuch Helped Manage The Department’s Civil Litigation. According to the Denver Post, “Gorsuch graduated from 

Columbia University, Harvard Law School and Oxford University. Currently he is principal deputy to the associate U.S. 

attorney general, helping manage the Justice Department's civil litigation.” [Denver Post, 7/21/06] 

The Deputy Attorney General Chaired The Task Force On Intellectual Property. According to the Department of 

Justice, “The Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property is part of a Department-wide initiative to confront the 

growing number of domestic and international intellectual property (IP) crimes. It is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General.” 

[Department of Justice, accessed 1/31/17] 

The Civil Division Of The Task Force Focused On Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Laws And Filing Amicus 

Briefs Where Necessary. According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual 

Property, “Civil Enforcement Efforts – Civil Division The Department of Justice combats intellectual property theft most 

visibly through enforcement of the Nation’s criminal laws. The successful defense of intellectual property rights, however, also 

requires vigorous enforcement by the owners of intellectual property through the civil justice system. The Department of 

Justice has filed numerous briefs, known as ‘amicus’ or ‘friend-of-the-court’ briefs, in the Supreme Court and lower courts 

supporting the maintenance and implementation of robust intellectual property rights. The Department of Justice also 

36

intervenes in appropriate cases to become a party in the litigation, thus promoting legal precedents that enforce intellectual 

property rights fairly and consistently. In these ways, the Department of Justice plays a vital role in promoting a legal 

environment that protects creativity and innovation. The Civil Division employs 14 lawyers devoted solely to intellectual 

property, as well as numerous appellate attorneys who assist with amicus filings as needed. Through these components, the 

Department of Justice also monitors civil enforcement developments that may hamper the ability of victims of intellectual 

property theft to use the civil courts effectively to defend themselves. For example, the Department of Justice actively consults 

with the USPTO and the United States Copyright Office about intellectual property cases. The Department of Justice also 

regularly reviews intellectual property trade publications, such as the Bureau of National Affairs’ Patent, Trademark, and 

Copyright Journal, and the United States Patents Quarterly’s advance sheets, to determine if any private lawsuits merit 

involvement by the Department of Justice. Since October 2004, the Department of Justice has filed 13 amicus briefs in the 

Supreme Court in cases involving intellectual property rights, and more than a dozen amicus briefs and Statements of Interest 

in lower courts. These filings occurred in cases that affect numerous high-tech industries, including pharmaceuticals, 

biotechnology, and online commerce. In many of these cases, courts have adopted the arguments made by the Department of 

Justice and consequently expanded protections for owners of intellectual property rights. Detailed explanations of these cases 

are set forth below in the Civil Recommendation section of this Progress Report.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on 

Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

TASK FORCE INDCTMENTS AND CONVICTIONS 

February 2006: The Task Force Helped Convict A U.S. Citizen For Importing Counterfeit Viagra. According to the 

Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “As the preceding statistical analysis 

demonstrates, the Department of Justice has brought many significant prosecutions against intellectual property thieves since 

the Task Force issued its report in October 2004. The cases include prosecutions of defendants trafficking in counterfeit 

pharmaceuticals, of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, and of violations of the federal trademark laws. Some of 

the more notable cases include: […] In February 2006, the Department of Justice obtained a conviction in Houston against a 

United States citizen for importing from China counterfeit pharmaceuticals bearing the Viagra and Cialis trademarks. ICE 

Special Agents conducted an undercover operation in Beijing, China, involving the Internet site bestonlineviagra.com. The 

Internet site was owned and used by the defendant to distribute bulk quantities of counterfeit Viagra and Cialis manufactured 

in China. Chinese officials cooperated in the investigation, and 11 additional individuals in China were arrested by Chinese 

authorities for manufacturing and distributing counterfeit drugs. Chinese officials seized 600,000 counterfeit Viagra labels and 

packaging, 440,000 counterfeit Viagra and Cialis tablets, and 260 kilograms of raw materials used to manufacture counterfeit 

pharmaceuticals.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

March 2006: The Task Force Investigated 19 People Accused Of Financing Hezbollah Through Counterfeiting. 

According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “As the preceding 

statistical analysis demonstrates, the Department of Justice has brought many significant prosecutions against intellectual 

property thieves since the Task Force issued its report in October 2004. The cases include prosecutions of defendants 

trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceuticals, of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, and of violations of the federal 

trademark laws. Some of the more notable cases include: […] In March 2006, a federal indictment was unsealed in Detroit 

charging 19 individuals with operating a racketeering enterprise that supported the terrorist organization Hizballah. The 

defendants are alleged to have financed their criminal enterprise by trafficking in counterfeit Viagra, by trafficking in 

counterfeit Zig-Zag papers and contraband cigarettes, and by producing counterfeit cigarette tax stamps.” [Department of 

Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

April 2006: The Department Helped Convict Two Members Of The Yi Ging Organization For Trafficking 

Counterfeit DVDs and CDs. According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual 

Property, “As the preceding statistical analysis demonstrates, the Department of Justice has brought many significant 

prosecutions against intellectual property thieves since the Task Force issued its report in October 2004. The cases include 

prosecutions of defendants trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceuticals, of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, 

and of violations of the federal trademark laws. Some of the more notable cases include: […] Yi Ging Organization – In April 

2006, the Department of Justice obtained convictions against two Chinese nationals as part of a crackdown against a violent 

criminal group in New York known as the Yi Ging Organization. These defendants had been included, along with 39 others, 

in a September 2005 indictment charging racketeering offenses, including extortion, witness tampering, trafficking in 

counterfeit DVDs and CDs, money laundering, operating a large-scale illegal gambling business, and drug trafficking. The Yi 

37

Ging Organization allegedly generated millions of dollars in profits from their counterfeit DVD and CD business. Gang 

members traveled to China to obtain illegal copies of American and Chinese DVDs, which they then smuggled into the United 

States, copied, and sold along with pirated music CDs at stores the gang controlled in Manhattan and other parts of New York 

City.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

May 2006: The Department Helped Convict Three Members Of An Internet Piracy Group. According to the Progress 

Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “On May 19, 2006, the Department of Justice 

obtained sentences of up to 15 months for three members of pre-release music piracy groups. Two of the defendants 

belonged to the Internet piracy group Apocalypse Crew, also known as “APC,” and the third to the group Chromance, also 

known as “CHR.” Both groups sought to acquire digital copies of songs and albums before their commercial release in the 

United States, which they would then prepare for distribution to secure computer servers throughout the world. The stolen 

songs were then distributed globally and, within hours, filtered down to peer-to-peer and other public file-sharing networks.” 

[Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

April 2006: The Department Helped Convict Two Men For Conspiracy To Produce Counterfeit CDs. According to 

the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “On April 3, 2006, the Department 

of Justice obtained convictions against two California men who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to mass-produce pirated music 

and software CDs. The two men were among five arrested as part of an undercover investigation targeting large-scale suppliers 

of pirated music and software. Agents seized nearly half a million pirated CDs and 5,500 high-speed, high-quality stampers 

used to make bootleg products. The recording industry called Operation Remaster the largest music manufacturing piracy 

seizure in United States history.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

December 2005: The Department Obtained A Conviction Against A Man For Selling Copyrighted Software. 

According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “In December 2005, 

the Department of Justice obtained convictions against a California man in Alexandria, Virginia, for selling copies of 

copyrighted software through his website, www.ibackups.net, and through the United States mail. The man sold, at prices 

substantially below the suggested retail price, more than $25 million in software products that were manufactured by Adobe 

Systems Inc., Macro-media, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Sonic Solutions, and Symantec Corporation. He is believed to be the 

most prolific online commercial distributor of pirated software ever convicted in the United States.” [Department of Justice’s 

Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

April 2006: The Department Helped Charge Five People Accused Of Stealing Movies. According to the Progress 

Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “On April 6, 2006, the Department of Justice 

obtained charges against five individuals who were ‘first-providers’ of stolen movies on the Internet. Operation Copycat, a San 

Jose-based FBI undercover investigation, was one of three investigations contributing to Operation Site Down. The 

Department of Justice has obtained charges against 36 individuals and convicted 28, including the first convictions under the 

newly enacted Family Entertainment and Copyright Act for camcording movies and distributing pre-release works on the 

Internet.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

April 2006: The Department Obtained A Conviction And Sentence Against A Man For Selling Trade Secrets. 

According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “In April 2006, the 

Department of Justice obtained a 48-month prison sentence against a Kentucky man for conspiring to steal and sell trade 

secrets belonging to Corning, Inc. The defendant, while a Corning employee, stole drawings of Corning’s Thin Filter 

Translator Liquid Crystal Display (“LCD”) glass and sold the drawings to a corporation based in Taiwan that intended to 

compete with Corning in the production of LCD glass.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 

06/2006] 

CIVIL LITIGATION AMICUS BRIEFS 

March 2006: The Task Force Filed An Amicus Brief Supporting A Permanent Injunction Against A Patent Infringer. 

According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “eBay Inc. v. 

MercExchange, LLC, 2006 WL 1310670 (May 15, 2006): The eBay case was the subject of considerable press commentary 

about the role of intellectual property enforcement as it relates to innovation and, in particular, the standards that judges must 

use to grant a permanent injunction against a patent infringer. On March 10, 2006, the Department of Justice filed an amicus 

38

ief regarding these standards. The Department of Justice argued in favor of a permanent injunction against the patent 

infringer and advocated a set of principles that should apply in such cases. On May 15, 2006, the Supreme Court issued a 

decision that adopted much of the Department of Justice’s reasoning.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual 

Property, 06/2006] 

2006: The Task Force Filed An Amicus Brief Arguing That Patents Did Not Establish A Monopoly. According to the 

Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “Since the issuance of the 2004 Report, 

the United States has appeared as amicus in numerous antitrust cases involving intellectual property. The Supreme Court 

followed the recommendation of the United States in two such cases: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 126 

S. Ct. 1281 (2006), and Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 125 S. Ct. 2956 (2005), which are described in more detail later in this 

Progress Report in the Civil Recommendation section. […] Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1281 

(2006): The Nation’s antitrust laws prohibit companies from using a monopoly in one market to establish a monopoly in 

another market, or in other words, from ‘tying’ the sale of one product to the sale of another product. Oftentimes, a company 

will sue a patent holder under the antitrust laws and claim that the patent holder illegally ‘tied’ the sale of another product to 

the patented product. As part of this claim, the company alleges that the patent’s existence gives the patent holder an 

economic monopoly, or ‘market power,’ in a particular market. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

held that Supreme Court precedent established a rebuttable presumption that the defendant has such market power if the tying 

product is patented. The Supreme Court granted review, and the United States filed an amicus brief arguing both that 

controlling precedent did not mandate a presumption that patents confer market power and that such a presumption would 

conflict with the procompetitive policies of the antitrust laws. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected the 

presumption and, as the United States had urged, vacated the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further 

proceedings in the district court to determine, among other things, whether the defendant had market power.” [Department of 


May 2006: The Task Force Filed An Amicus Brief Arguing That The Cuban Embargo Prevented A Cuban Company 

From Acquiring An American Trademark. According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force 

on Intellectual Property, “Empresa Cubana del Tabaco d/b/a Cubatabaco v. Culbro Corp., 399 F.3d 462 (2d Cir. 2005): In 

trademark law, the “famous marks doctrine” permits a foreign trademark owner to establish certain rights if the trademark has 

achieved a certain level of consumer recognition from sales in other countries. In this case, the court considered whether the 

Cuban embargo prevented a Cuban company from acquiring the rights to the COHIBA trademark by operation of the famous 

marks doctrine. In an amicus brief, the Department of Justice argued that the embargo prevented the Cuban company from 

acquiring the mark, but did not prevent it from cancelling the United States mark that was previously awarded to another 

entity in the United States but was cancelled based on the Cuban entity’s use of the mark abroad. A federal court of appeals 

agreed with the Department of Justice’s analysis under the embargo, but disagreed that the Cuban entity could obtain a 

cancellation of the mark. The Supreme Court invited the Department of Justice to file a brief expressing the views of the 

United States, which was filed on May 19, 2006.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

April 2006: The Task Force Filed An Statement Of Interest That Peer-To-Peer Sharing Of Copyrighted Materials 

Was Illegal. According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “Elektra 

Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Barker, No. 05-CV-7340 (S.D.N.Y.): In this case, a peer-to-peer system user allegedly posted 

copies of recorded songs online and, thus, transferred those copies when they were downloaded by other system users. The 

defendant argued that electronically transferring a copy of a song was not the same thing as “distributing” the song within the 

meaning of the relevant statute. On April 21, 2006, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest arguing that when a 

peer-to-peer system user electronically transfers a copy of a copyrighted file without authorization, that user infringes the 

copyright owner’s distribution right. The Department of Justice’s position, which comports with a number of court decisions, 

serves as a basis for many of the Department of Justice’s criminal copyright infringement prosecutions. A decision is pending 

on the defendant’s motion to dismiss.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

May 2006: The Task Force Filed An Statement Of Interest That Peer-To-Peer Sharing Of Copyrighted Materials 

Violated Copyright Laws. According to the Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual 

Property, “Fonovisa, Inc. v. Alvarez, No. 06-CV-011 (N.D. Tex.): This case, like Elektra Entertainment, also involved a claim 

of peer-to-peer transfer of copyrighted works in which the defendant raised the same argument that an electronic transfer of a 

song did not constitute an infringing “distribution.” On May 16, 2006, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest 

advancing the same arguments as it did in the Elektra Entertainment case.” [Department of Justice’s Task Force on 

Intellectual Property, 06/2006] 

39

The Task Force Wrote An Amicus Brief Discussing The Validity of A Patent For A Car Pedal. According to the 

Progress Report On the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, “KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 

No. 04-1350: In this case, the Supreme Court has been asked to reverse a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (‘Federal Circuit’) on the meaning of Section 103(a) of the patent laws and the use of prior art. That section 

prohibits patentability of an invention ‘if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art 

[i.e., the preexisting state of knowledge in the relevant field] are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been 

obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’ 

Prior art includes knowledge available to those skilled in the art through prior publications, patents, and products that have 

been sold or publicly used more than one year before the filing of a patent application. The Federal Circuit reversed a 

summary judgment that an adjustable automobile pedal patent was invalid because, in its view, the district court had not 

pointed to a specific suggestion in the prior art to combine features of two prior art devices. The petitioner contends that the 

suggestion test adds an element not contained in the statutory test for obviousness and is inconsistent with prior Supreme 

Court precedent. The Supreme Court has asked the Department of Justice for its views regarding the case.” [Department of 


40

10 TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (2006- PRESENT) 

2006: Nominated And Confirmed To The 10 th Circuit Court of Appeals 

MAY 2006: BUSH NOMINATED GORSUCH 

May 2006: Bush Nominated Gorsuch. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Also Wednesday, Bush sent to the Senate 

another circuit court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, who currently serves as the principal deputy to the associate attorney 

general.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/06] 

GORSUCH’S CONFIRMATION HEARING WAS UNEVENTFUL 

Denver Post: Only One Senator Attended Gorsuch’s Nomination. According to the Denver Post, “Denver native Neil 

Gorsuch seemed headed toward easy confirmation to the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after gliding through a 

20-minute U.S. Senate committee hearing on his qualifications Wednesday. Only one senator on the 18-member Judiciary 

Committee attended the hearing, a signal the nomination is not controversial. ‘I have nothing but good things to say about Mr. 

Gorsuch,’ said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the sole senator at the hearing. Graham worked with the Columbia-, Harvardand 

Oxford-educated Gorsuch at the Department of Justice.” [Denver Post, 6/22/06] 

Lindsey Graham Was The Only Senator At The Hearing. According to the Denver Post, “Denver native Neil Gorsuch 

seemed headed toward easy confirmation to the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after gliding through a 20-minute 

U.S. Senate committee hearing on his qualifications Wednesday. Only one senator on the 18-member Judiciary Committee 

attended the hearing, a signal the nomination is not controversial. ‘I have nothing but good things to say about Mr. Gorsuch,’ 

said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the sole senator at the hearing. Graham worked with the Columbia-, Harvard- and Oxfordeducated 

Gorsuch at the Department of Justice.” [Denver Post, 6/22/06] 

Senator Graham Asked Gorsuch What He Considered The Difference Between A Judge And An Advocate. 

According to Gorsuch’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Senator Graham. That is very important, but you 

have got to understand people underneath. What is the difference, in you opinion, if you could share with me, between being 

an advocate and a judge? Mr. Gorsuch. Being an advocate is a great deal easier, in some respects. Your client’s position defines 

your objective, and your obligation is to represent him or her zealously. I have to tell you, Senator, I love being a lawyer. I love 

that aspect of the profession, of being in the arena and fighting it out within the rules of civility, decency, and common sense. 

Being a judge is however, the greatest honor that any lawyer, practicing lawyer, could ask to have because your client becomes 

not an individual, a corporation, a partnership, it becomes the case of justice. There is no greater client than that.” [Senate 

Judiciary Committee, 6/21/06] 

 

Gorsuch Answered That As A Judge, “Justice” Was Your Client. According to Gorsuch’s testimony before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee, “Senator Graham. That is very important, but you have got to understand people underneath. 

What is the difference, in you opinion, if you could share with me, between being an advocate and a judge? Mr. Gorsuch. 

Being an advocate is a great deal easier, in some respects. Your client’s position defines your objective, and your obligation 

is to represent him or her zealously. I have to tell you, Senator, I love being a lawyer. I love that aspect of the profession, 

of being in the arena and fighting it out within the rules of civility, decency, and common sense. Being a judge is however, 

the greatest honor that any lawyer, practicing lawyer, could ask to have because your client becomes not an individual, a 

corporation, a partnership, it becomes the case of justice. There is no greater client than that.” [Senate Judiciary 

Committee, 6/21/06] 

When Asked His Judging Philosophy, Gorsuch Said He Avoided “Pigeon Holes.” According to Gorsuch’s testimony 

before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Senator Graham. That was well said. I know this is something you have not really 

done yet. But what is your philosophy about judging and how you fit into this constitutional democracy that we have been 

trying to get better and tinker with for 200 years? Mr. Gorsuch. Well, you are right, I have not done it yet so it is a little 

presumptuous. Senator Graham. How you see yourself fitting in. Mr. Gorsuch. But if I were to be confirmed, Senator, I resist 

pigeon holes. I think those are not terribly helpful, pigeon-holing someone as having this philosophy or that philosophy. They 

41

often surprise you. People to unexpected things and pigeon holes ignore gray areas in the law, of which there are a great many. 

I can tell you how I think I would like to view approaching decisions. That is, first and foremost, with this thought in mind: to 

those clients who are affected, to that lawyer in the well, that may be the most important thing in their life and that case 

deserves the attention, the care and the scrutiny of a complete lawyer and the complete attention of the judge without being 

diverted by personal politics, policy preferences, or what you ate for breakfast. Those people deserve your very best at all 

times. There are certain tools that I think can get you there. First, you listen to that lawyer in the well. You do not treat them 

as a cat's paw. He is not some pawn in a game to be played with and batted around. He is to be taken seriously. He has studied 

this issue for, sometimes, months, years, and lived with it.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 6/21/06] 

Gorsuch Said It Would Be “Unacceptable” For A Federal Judge To Be An Idealogue. According to Gorsuch’s 

testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Senator Graham. The best you can, describe what you think an idealogue 

would be and why that would be bad. Mr. Gorsuch. In terms of being a Federal judge, Senator? Senator Graham. Yes. Mr. 

Gorsuch. Someone who is not willing to do what I just talked about. That is, someone who is not willing to listen with an 

open mind to the arguments of counsel, to this colleagues, and to precedent, someone who is willing to just, willy-nilly, 

disregard those three things, to effect his own personal views, his politics, his personal preferences. That is unacceptable.” 

[Senate Judiciary Committee, 6/21/06] 

Gorsuch Said His Writings On Death With Dignity Laws Were “Largely In Defense Of Existing Law.” According to 

Gorsuch’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Senator Graham. In the area of assisted suicide and euthanasia, I 

think you have been a fairly prolific writer and you certainly have an interest in that area. How will your past positions affect 

your ability to judge in cases that may contain those questions? Mr. Gorsuch. Senator, my personal views, as I hope I have 

made clear, have nothing to do with the case before me in any case. The litigants deserve better than that, the law demands 

more than that. That said, Senator, my writings, just to clarify, have been largely in defense of existing law, that is, they are 

consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in this area and existing law in most places. So, I do not think there is actually 

much tension between my writings and anything that might come before the court, but I can pledge to this Committee, 

Senator, that I will reach any question before me, should I become a judge, with an open mind and listen tot he arguments of 

counsel, the views of my colleagues and prior case law from the Supreme Court, and the various Courts of Appeals.” [Senate 

Judiciary Committee, 6/21/06] 

JULY 2006: GORSUCH’S APPOINTMENT WAS CONFIRMED 

July 2006: The Judiciary Committee Approved Gorsuch’s Nomination. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The 

committee also approved separately by voice vote the nominations of: - Neil M. Gorsuch to be U.S. Circuit judge for the 10th 

Circuit.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/06] 

July 2006: The Senate Confirmed Gorsuch’s Appointment. According to the Denver Post, “Denver native Neil Gorsuch 

won U.S. Senate confirmation Thursday night to the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Gorsuch's nomination was 

approved on a voice vote. Individual votes weren't tallied because the nomination wasn't deemed controversial.” [Denver Post, 

7/21/06] 

 

Gorsuch Was Approved To The U.S. Appeals Court By Voice Vote In The Senate. According to Star-News, “Of 

the three leading candidates, only Pryor faced significant opposition when nominated to the appeals court. Senate 

Democrats refused to allow a vote on his nomination, leading Bush initially to give Pryor a temporary recess appointment. 

In 2005, the Senate confirmed him 53-45, after senators reached an agreement to curtail delaying tactics for appellate 

judgeships. Gorsuch was approved by a voice vote in 2006.” [Star-News, 1/25/17] 

“Feeder Judge” 

Gorsuch Was Known As A “Feeder Judge” Who Regularly Placed Clerks With U.S. Supreme Court Justices. 

According to The Denver Post, “David Lat, managing editor of the legal website Above the Law, points to Gorsuch ‘s stellar 

academic pedigree and national connections, but also to his age 49 and primed for an extended run as reasons to consider him 

among the favorites for the nomination. (One website even has its own ‘fantasy league’ tally underway a decidedly unscientific 

poll but one aimed at a largely legal minded audience that shows Gorsuch leading the pack.) Lat also notes Gorsuch ‘s status as 

42

a so called ‘feeder judge’ one who regularly places clerks with U.S. Supreme Court justices as another indicator of the respect 

he commands in elite judicial circles.” [Denver Post, 12/11/16] 

43

2012: Supreme Court Speculation 

Potential Supreme Court Nominee 

Gorsuch Was On An Unofficial List Of Potential Supreme Court Nominees Under Romney. According to CNN, 

“Here is an unofficial list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court if Mitt Romney is elected president in November. This 

list was compiled from a number of sources, including those serving as informal advisers to the Romney campaign. The 

Republican nominee has not specified publicly on favorites for the court. Many names mentioned are relatively young judges 

named to the federal bench by President George W. Bush. […] Judge Neil Gorsuch, 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, 

Denver Born 1967. Appointed by George W. Bush. Harvard law School graduate who clerked for Justices Byron White and 

Anthony Kennedy. He went into private practice in Washington before joining the Bush Justice Department. His mother, 

Anne Burford, was the first woman to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. He wrote the book: ‘The Future of Assisted 

Suicide and Euthanasia.’” [CNN, 9/30/12] 

2017: Supreme Court Appointment 

VIEWED AS A PLAY FOR RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES; AVOIDING “DAVID 

SOUTHER EFFECT” 

A Judicial Crisis Network Spokesperson Said A Neil Gorsuch Nomination Would Not Risk A “David Souter 

Effect.” According to The Denver Post, “As one of two Coloradans from the 10th Circuit to make Trump’s list of possible 

successors to the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death in February, Gorsuch brings strong conservative 

bonafides that would at least in theory re establish a court majority. ‘He has a clear record of a consistent judicial philosophy 

and applying that in action,’ said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, a 

conservative advocacy group. ‘One of the real values here is he’s someone with solid record and we’re able to assess his 

experience. Conservatives are still concerned about the ‘David Souter effect.’ ‘” [Denver Post, 12/11/16] 

Neil Gorsuch Did Not Appear On Donald Trump’s Initial List Of Potential Supreme Court Nominees Provided In 

May 2016, But Was Recommended To Trump By Admirers In His Administration. According to Denver Business 

Journal, “A list of then-candidate Trump’s 11 potential high-court nominees in May 2016 included another Colorado jurist, 

Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison H. Eid, but not Gorsuch . However, Gorsuch did appear on a second list of potential 

picks issued in September. According to Savage, Gorsuch ‘s ‘stock has been rising lately as several admirers and supporters 

have been named to positions in the Trump administration.’” [Denver Business Journal, 1/24/17] 

YOUNGEST OF FINAL SCOTUS NOMINEE PICKS 

Neil Gorsuch Was the Youngest Of President Trump’s Final Picks For The Supreme Court. According to McClatchy, 

“Trump started marketing his eventual Supreme Court choice with two public lists, totaling 21 ostensible candidates. Some of 

the early names seemed floated primarily for political purposes, like the ego-stroking inclusion of Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. The 

initial lists included four women and, ethnically, one African-American, one Hispanic and one Asian-American. Gorsuch and 

the other two reported finalists are middle-age white men who have conservative judicial credentials that would effectively 

retain the court’s 5-4 rightward tilt during during Scalia’s tenure. At 49, Gorsuch is the youngest of the presumed finalists and 

his elite educational background most closely matches that of the current justices. Born in Denver, he earned his 

undergraduate degree from Columbia University, his law degree from Harvard and a doctorate in legal philosophy from 

Oxford University.” [McClatchy, 1/30/17] 

SCANT RECORD OF LEGAL DECISIONS ON HOT BUTTON ISSUES 

Neil Gorsuch Had Not Written Extensively On Major Social Issues Like Gun Control And Gay Rights. According to 

The New York Times, “Judge Gorsuch has not written extensively on other major social issues like gun control and gay rights, 

44

ut his record could still provide ammunition for Democrats; he has called for limiting the power of federal regulators and has 

criticized liberals for turning to the courts rather than legislatures to achieve their policy goals. Judge John L. Kane, who was 

appointed to the Federal District Court in Denver by President Jimmy Carter, said Judge Gorsuch was admired by his fellow 

judges. ‘He writes opinions in a unique style that has more verve and vitality than any other judges I study on a regular basis,’ 

Judge Kane said.” [New York Times, 1/25/17] 

Slate Magazine’s Mark Joseph Stern Said Neil Gorsuch Was “The Nominee Least Likely To Spur A Democratic 

Filibuster-Not Because Of His Ideology But Because Of His Relatively Scant Paper Trail.” According to Slate 

Magazine, “Start with Gorsuch, the nominee least likely to spur a Democratic filibuster-not because of his ideology but 

because of his relatively scant paper trail, his unfailing eloquence, and his universal legal renown. Gorsuch sits on the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, based in his home state of Colorado, to which he was appointed, without controversy, 

by George W. Bush. A Harvard Law graduate, a Marshall Scholar, and a Supreme Court clerk (for both Justice Anthony 

Kennedy and the right-leaning Justice Byron White), Gorsuch ‘s credentials are impeccable. His writing is superb, incisive, 

witty, and accessible in the style of Scalia and Justice Elena Kagan. In speeches and oral arguments, he comes across as 

thoughtful and fair-minded. He is also quite handsome, which may appeal to Trump, who purportedly makes appointments 

based on who looks the part.” [Mark Joseph Stern, Slate Magazine, 1/26/17] 

Wisconsin Law Professor Ryan Owns Said Neil Gorsuch Would Be Easier To Confirm Than William Pryor. 

According to The Washington Times, “Mr. Gorsuch has the potential to influence the court long-term. He’s collegial, an 

invaluable asset for any justice and at 49-years would be the youngest justice, and slightly younger than the average successful 

post-war Supreme Court nominee. Mr. Pryor is also solidly conservative, but his nomination could trigger a furious battle with 

Senate Democrats. At times, such battles are worth it. This is not one of those times. Mr. Gorsuch too will face opposition, 

but may prove far easier to confirm. Mr. Pryor and other potentially great nominees will presumably remain on the president’s 

list and available for future vacancies.” [Ryan Owens, Op-ed, Washington Times, 1/30/17] 

45

RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIVIDUALS 

Antonin Scalia 

CALLED “LION OF THE LAW” 

Neil Gorsuch Praised The Late Justice Antonin Scalia As A “Lion Of The Law.” According to The San Diego Union 

Tribune, “With Trump’s choices reputedly narrowed to two or three conservative appellate judges, the president has said he 

will announce the nominee Thursday. There’s a distinct possibility of a leak before then, as lawmakers and interest groups 

appear ready for a confrontation that’s been nearly a year in the making. ‘I can already tip you off,’ Vice President Mike Pence 

told Republican lawmakers meeting in Philadelphia Thursday. ‘President Trump’s going to keep his promise to the American 

people and he’s going to nominate a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court.’ One of the leading contenders, Denverbased 

Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has praised Scalia as a ‘lion of the law.’ Scalia denied he 

was a strict constructionist, though the label often stuck.” [San Diego Union Tribune, 1/30/17] 

SAID SCALIA “REMIND US OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JUDGES AND 

LEGISLATORS” 

Neil Gorsuch: “The Great Project Of Justice Scalia’s Career Was To Remind Us Of The Differences Between 

Judges And Legislators.” According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to 

federal agencies and is most noted for a strong defense of religious exemptions in cases brought by private companies and 

religious nonprofit groups objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Gorsuch said in a speech last 

spring that as a judge he had tried to follow Scalia’s path. ‘The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the 

differences between judges and legislators,’ Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 

Cleveland. Legislators ‘may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they 

think it should be in the future,’ Gorsuch said. But ‘judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.’ Instead, 

they should use ‘text, structure and history’ to understand what the law is, ‘not to decide cases based on their own moral 


Anthony Kennedy 

KENNEDY ATTENDED HIS JUDICAL SWEARING IN 

Justice Kennedy Attended Neil Gorsuch Judicial Swearing in Ceremony. According to Washington Post, “There is a 

Supreme Court clerkship; Gorsuch was hired by Justice Byron White, a fellow Colorado native, who shared him with Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy. Kennedy stood by that day in Denver to administer the judicial oath, and he might soon be welcoming 

his former charge to the empty chair at the end of the Supreme Court’s mahogany bench. But those who know Gorsuch and 

have studied his decade of solidly conservative opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit say he more 

resembles the man he would replace - the late Justice Antonin Scalia - than the more moderate Kennedy. Like Scalia, Gorsuch 

is a proponent of originalism - meaning that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were 

understood at the time they were written - and a textualist who considers only the words of the law being reviewed, not 

legislators’ intent or the consequences of the decision. Critics say that those neutral considerations seem to always lead 

Gorsuch to conservative outcomes, a criticism that was also leveled at Scalia.” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

DISAGREED WITH KENNEDY’S “DIGNITY OF FREE PERSONS” CONCEPT 

Neil Gorsuch Rejected Justice Kennedy’s Core Concept Of The “Dignity Of Free Persons,” Which Has Influenced 

Kennedy’s Opinions On Cases Upholding Abortion And LGBT Rights. According to Washington Post, “If Trump 

picks one of the two most widely speculated choices - federal appeals court judges William Pryor or Neil Gorsuch - that will 

likely encourage Kennedy to stay in place. While Kennedy is said to have some personal affinity for Gorsuch (one of his 

former law clerks), both Pryor and Gorsuch reject Kennedy’s most important views on constitutional principles - particularly 

46

his dedication to a core concept of the ‘dignity of free persons.’ Kennedy’s dignity principle is an idea he articulated in his 

Senate confirmation hearing nearly 30 years ago and has been central to many of his opinions in the years since, particularly in 

cases upholding abortion rights and LGBT rights.” [Ronald A. Klain, Op-ed, Washington Post, 1/30/17] 

APPOINTMENT THEORIZED TO BRING KENNEDY RIGHTWARD 

Wisconsin Law Professor Ryan Owns Said Neil Gorsuch Appointment To The Supreme Court Would “Counteract” 

Justice Kagan’s “Influence” Over Justice Kennedy And Move Kennedy Back To His “Conservative Roots.” 

According to The Washington Times, “Mr. Trump is reported to be focusing on three sitting judges from that list: Neil 

Gorsuch , Thomas Hardiman, and William Pryor. Any of these judges would satisfy conservatives, but for a variety of reasons 

Mr. Trump would be well advised to name Mr. Gorsuch . Here’s why. Mr. Trump needs to choose someone who can 

counteract Justice Elena Kagan’s apparent influence on Justice Anthony Kennedy and gently escort Justice Kennedy back to 

his conservative roots. Justice Kennedy, whose vote is key to the outcome in many close decisions. Justice Kagan seems to 

have worked magic on Justice Kennedy. Since her arrival, he has consistently moved in the liberal direction and rarely looks 

back. Justice Kennedy has sided with the court’s liberals more often each term than he did the previous term since Justice 

Kagan came to the Court. In fact, he even voted more liberally in the 2015 term than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in both 

the 1993 and 1994 terms. Mr. Gorsuch , who once clerked for Justice Kennedy, may be able to counteract Justice Kagan’s 

pull.” [Ryan Owens, Op-ed, Washington Times, 1/30/17] 

47

RELATIONSHIPS WITH GROUPS 

Federalist Socirty 

Gorsuch Was Favored By Legal Experts At The Federalist Society And Heritage Foundation. According to CNN, 

“Gorsuch , 49, has been on the radar of some judicial conservatives for some time. He has long been a favorite of legal 

thinkers at the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Conservatives welcome his opinions on religious liberty. For 

instance, he has sided with closely held corporations who argued that the so called contraceptive mandate violated their 

religious beliefs. In another opinion, he challenged the notion that courts should defer to administrative agencies when they 

interpret the law. It may seem like a dry legal issue but it is central to many conservatives, including Justice Clarence Thomas.” 

[CNN, 1/24/17] 

Gorsuch Was Involved With The Federalist Society. According to The Denver Post, “His involvement with the Federalist 

Society, a prominent group of conservative and libertarian lawyers and judges, cements his ideological credentials and suggests 

he could be a reliable conservative vote on the panel.” [Denver Post, 12/11/16] 

Heritage Foundation 

Gorsuch Was Favored By Legal Experts At The Federalist Society And Heritage Foundation. According to CNN, 

“Gorsuch , 49, has been on the radar of some judicial conservatives for some time. He has long been a favorite of legal 

thinkers at the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Conservatives welcome his opinions on religious liberty. For 

instance, he has sided with closely held corporations who argued that the so called contraceptive mandate violated their 

religious beliefs. In another opinion, he challenged the notion that courts should defer to administrative agencies when they 

interpret the law. It may seem like a dry legal issue but it is central to many conservatives, including Justice Clarence Thomas.” 

[CNN, 1/24/17] 

48

ISSUES 

ABORTION AND FAMILY PLANNING 


Gorsuch opposed the provision of the Affordable Care Act that mandated employers with religious objections provide 

contraceptive coverage. 

Gorsuch was a member of the majority opinion that upheld Hobby Lobby’s right to deny contraceptive coverage. 

Gorsuch dissentied to the 10 th circuit court’s refusal to rehear a decision to block Utah’s governor from defunding 

Planned Parenthood 

Abortion, Generally 

Gorsuch: “All Human Beings Are Intrinsically Valuable And The Intentional Taking Of Human Life By Private 

Persons Is Always Wrong.” According to the Washington Post, “Gorsuch has not ruled on the topic of abortion. But 

activists on both sides of the issue believe they know where he stands. They point to language in his book in which he opines 

that ‘all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.’” 


Pro-Life Activists Criticized Neil Gorsuch For Not Showing Enough Devotion To Anti-Abortion Causes. According 

to The Washington Times, “As President Trump nears a decision this week on his Supreme Court nominee, conservative 

groups are actively trying to derail at least two of the judges reported to be at the top of his list, saying they can’t be relied on 

to pursue conservative goals from the federal bench. One group is running ads accusing 11th U.S. Circuit Court Judge William 

Pryor of showing hostility toward religious liberty in a 2011 case, and another is warning Mr. Trump not to pick 10th U.S. 

Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch , saying he has not shown enough devotion to pro-life causes.” [Washington Times, 

1/25/17] 

Andrew Schlafly: “Gorsuch Is Not Pro-Life.” According to The Washington Times, “Some pro-life activists, meanwhile, 

say Judge Gorsuch would not meet Mr. Trump’s pledge to put pro-life judges on the federal bench. Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer 

at the Legal Center for Defense of Life and son of the late conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, said Judge Gorsuch uses prochoice 

terminology in his writings and may not be willing to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a 

national constitutional right to abortion. ‘Gorsuch is not pro-life,’ Mr. Schlafly said. ‘That would break Trump’s pro-life pledge 

to pick Gorsuch .’” [Washington Times, 1/25/17] 

Contraception 

FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE 









49

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR 

Gorsuch Dissented On The 10 th Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruling Against The Little Sisters Of The Poor In Their 

Anti-Contraception Case. According to World Net Daily, “But the 10th Circuit judges’ dissenting opinion Thursday in 

another case centered on religious rights warns of the dangers of having judges ‘examine the reasoning behind a religious 

practice or belief and decide what is core and what is derivative.’ In that case, the Little Sisters of the Poor in Denver object to 

having a health insurance policy that provides abortion-causing drugs for their employees. The nuns argue that either 

providing the drugs or authorizing someone else to provide them would violate Catholic doctrine. […]The majority of the 

10th Circuit refused to hear the case of the Little Sisters, who now have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. ‘The doctrine of 

the panel majority will not long survive,’ the 10th Circuit judges said. ‘It is contrary to all precedent concerning the free 

exercise of religion. I am aware of no precedent holding that a person’s free exercise was not substantially burdened when a 

significant penalty was imposed for refusing to do something prohibited by the person’s sincere religious beliefs (however 

strange, or even silly, the court may consider those beliefs).’ The opinion was written by Judge Harris Hartz, who was joined 

by Neil Gorsuch, Jerome Holmes, Timothy Tymkovich and Paul Kelly.” [World Net Daily, 9/3/15] 

HOBBY LOBBY 

Objected To The ACA Contraception Mandate On Religious Freedom Grounds 

Neil Gorsuch Objected To The Contraceptive Mandate In The Affordable Care Act. According to Washington Post, 

“Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to federal agencies and is most noted for a strong defense of 

religious exemptions in cases brought by private companies and religious nonprofit groups objecting to the contraceptive 

mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that as a judge he had tried to follow Scalia’s path. 

‘The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators,’ Gorsuch told 

an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. Legislators ‘may appeal to their own moral 

convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future,’ Gorsuch said. But 

‘judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.’ Instead, they should use ‘text, structure and history’ to 

understand what the law is, ‘not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the pol-icy consequences they believe 

might serve society best.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 









Gorsuch Said The Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Mandate Would Require Businesses To “Underwrite 

Payments For Drugs Or Devices That Can Have The Effect Of Destroying A Fertilized Human Egg.” According to 

Washington Post, “Gorsuch has not ruled on the topic of abortion. But activists on both sides of the issue believe they know 

where he stands. They point to language in his book in which he opines that ‘all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the 

intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.’ Additionally, his rulings on behalf of those who 

challenged the Obamacare mandate that employee insurance coverage provide all approved contraceptives seemed instructive. 

He noted that would require the objecting businesses to ‘underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of 

destroying a fertilized human egg.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

Gorsuch On Hobby Lobby: Employers With “Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs” Should Not Be Made Complicit In 

“Conduct Their Religion Teaches Them To Be Gravely Wrong.” According to Los Angeles Times, “His best-known 

opinions grew out of the dispute over the Obama administration’s regulation requiring employers to provide female employees 

with the full range of contraceptives as part of their insurance. Catholic groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor and the 

50

evangelical Christian family who owned the Hobby Lobby craft stores sued and sought a religious exemption from paying for 

contraceptives that they said could ‘destroy a fertilized human egg.’ Both cases ended up in the 10th Circuit, and Gorsuch 

voiced support for the religious claimants. ‘All of us face the problem of complicity,’ he wrote in the Hobby Lobby case. And 

government should not force people with ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ to be complicit in ‘conduct their religion teaches 

them to be gravely wrong.’ The high court reached the same decision by a 5-4 vote in 2014.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/24/17] 

Gorsuch: “The ACA’s Mandate Requires Them To Violate Their Religious Faith By Forcing Them To Lend An 

Impermissible Degree Of Assistance To Conduct Their Religion Teaches To Be Gravely Wrong.” According to ABC 

News, “In the Hobby Lobby case, Gorsuch wrote, ‘The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by 

forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.’” [ABC 

News, 1/26/17] 

Neil Gorsuch, In Agreement With The Conservative Majority In Burwell V. Hobby Lobby, Said That The 

Constitution “Does Perhaps Its Most Important Work In Protecting Unpopular Religious Beliefs.” According to 

Washington Post, “Gorsuch‘s opinions favoring the owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores and the nonprofit religious 

group Little Sisters of the Poor took the same sort of broad reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the Supreme 

Court’s conservative majority. In Gorsuch‘s words, 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.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

Voted To Delay Fines On Hobby Lobby For Violating The ACA Contraception Mandate 

Gorsuch Voted To Delay Fines On Hobby Lobby For Not Complying With The Affordable Care Act’s 

Contraception Mandate. According to the Tulsa World, “In a health-care decision giving hope to opponents of the federal 

birth-control coverage mandate, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hobby Lobby stores may not have to start paying 

millions of dollars in fines as soon as next week for not complying with the requirement. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Denver decided the Oklahoma City-based arts-and-crafts chain will get more time to argue in a lower court that for-profit 

businesses - not just currently exempted religious groups - should be allowed to seek an ex-ception if the law violates their 

religious beliefs. The company had sued to overturn the mandate on grounds that it violates the Christian faith of founder and 

CEO David Green and his family. The appeals court over-turned the decision of a judge in Oklahoma City who refused to 

block parts of President Obama's Affordable Care Act. […] Four of eight judges of the six-state court voted for granting the 

injunction, but that was one vote short. They are Paul Kelly of Santa Fe, N.M., Harris Hartz of Albuquerque, Tim Tymkovich 

of Denver and Neil Gorsuch of Denver.” [Tulsa World, 6/28/13] 

Was In The 10 th Circuit Court’s Majority Opinion That Hobby Lobby Had The Right To Challenge The 

Contraception Mandate In Court 

Gorsuch Was In The Majority In The 10 th Circuit Court’s Decision That Hobby Lobby Had Religious Rights To 

Oppose The ACA Contraception Mandate. According to the Wall Street Journal, “A divided federal appeals court said 

Thursday that companies, whether for profit or not, have religious rights. The ruling came in a challenge by arts and crafts 

chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Christian bookstore chain Mardel Inc. to a part of President Barack Obama‘s 2010 

healthcare overhaul — namely, a requirement that employee health insurance plans include free contraceptive coverage. The 

companies say the requirement violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, as well as the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act, which guards against laws that substantially burden that right. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

10th Circuit ruled Thursday that Hobby Lobby and Mardel could likely make their case but stopped short of blocking the 

contraceptive mandate. The court instead sent the case back to a federal district judge for further consideration. […] Judge 

Tymkovich was joined by Judge Paul Kelly Jr., Judge Harris Hartz, Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Robert Bacharach.” [Wall 

Street Journal, 6/27/13] 

Planned Parenthood 

51

October 2016: The 10 th Circuit Court Of Appeals Declined To Rehear A Lawsuit By Planned Parenthood Against 

Utah’s Governor. According to Fox 13 Now, “A federal appeals court has decided it will not rehear the appeal of a lawsuit 

filed by Planned Parenthood against Utah’s governor. In a 27-page order issued Friday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 

in Denver said a majority of its judges voted against an ‘en banc’ hearing of the case. Four of the judges, it said, voted to 

rehear it. Neither Planned Parenthood Association of Utah or Governor Gary Herbert requested a re-hearing. It was brought 

up by the 10th Circuit Court itself.” [Fox 13 Now, 10/28/16] 

 

The 10th Circuit Court Had Previously Ruled The Governor Could Not Block Planned Parenthood From 

Receiving Federal Funding. According to Fox 13 Now, “In July, the court ruled that Governor Herbert could not 

block federal ‘pass through’ dollars from going to the reproductive rights group. He sought to cut off Planned 

Parenthood’s money after videos surfaced that purported to show executives from the national group discussing the sale 

of fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood has repeatedly insisted the videos were heavily edited and misleading. A federal judge 

in Utah ruled against Planned Parenthood, which appealed to the 10th Circuit Court.” [Fox 13 Now, 10/28/16] 

Gorsuch Dissented, Said The Court Should Rehear The Case. According to Fox 13 Now, “‘Respectfully, this case 

warrants rehearing. As it stands, the panel opinion leaves litigants in preliminary injunction disputes reason to worry that this 

court will sometimes deny deference to district court factual findings; relax the burden of proof by favoring attenuated causal 

claims our precedent disfavors; and invoke arguments for reversal untested by the parties, unsupported by the record, and 

inconsistent with principles of comity,’ Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in a dissent.’” [Fox 13 Now, 10/28/16] 

Roe V. Wade 

Gorsuch Has Not Written An Opinion On Roe V. Wade. According to Newsweek, “Gorsuch hasn’t written a ruling 

specifically dealing with Roe v. Wade, but he is known to have strong opinions on religious liberty, a view that appeals to many 

conservatives.” [Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

Vanity License Plates 

James Kilpatrick Op-Ed: Gorsuch Ruled That Oklahoma Could Prohibit Proceeds From A Pro-Adoption Vanity 

License From Benefitting Any Organization That Was “Involved Or Associated With Any Abortion Activities.” 

According to an op-ed by James Kilpatrick, “Every state permits its motorists to buy specialty or ‘;vanity’ license plates. The 

pending case arose five years ago when the Oklahoma legislature authorized the manufacture and sale of a $35 plate bearing 

the message, ‘;Choose Life,’ or as an alternative, ‘;Adoption Creates Families.’ Proceeds from these sales were to be 

apportioned statewide for the promotion of the adoption of un-wanted children. Specifically, no organization could share in 

the license sales if it were ‘involved or associated with any abortion activities, including counseling for or referrals to abortion 

activities, including counseling for or referrals to abortion clinics, providing medical-abortion related procedures, or proabortion 

advertising.’ Advocates of ‘;planned parenthood’ naturally were offended. Few of them are passionately in favor of 

abortion as a solution to every unwanted pregnancy, but they accept abortion as a last resort after efforts at counseling and 

adoption have failed. They sought legislative relief. Their efforts failed. They pleaded the First Amendment. No one listened. 

Gov. Brad Henry gave the plaintiffs no help. In his subsequent brief in the Supreme Court, he says: ‘;The state has in no way 

attempted to silence petitioners from any speech related activity. They are still free to place their viewpoint on any bumper 

stickers they desire. Indeed, they could paint their entire car with slo-gans and/or viewpoint speech if they so desired. The 

state is merely advocating a particular viewpoint which its current political electorate have determined to be favored.’ Thus 

rebuffed by politicians, the petitioners turned seriously to the courts. They lost at every level. Finally, last March, Judge Neil 

Gorsuch spoke for a panel of the 10th Circuit: ‘;We have no qualms finding in this case that the primary purpose of the special 

license plate scheme is revenue rather than regulation and thus that it qualifies as a ‘tax.’’ From that opinion Harold Hill and 

his co-plaintiffs now seek a hearing in the high court. [Op-ed- James Kilpatrick, 11/16/07] 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES 

52


Gorsuch disagreed with a court ruling that the ten commandments could not be displayed on a courthouse lawn 

Gorsuch ruled that a police officer could reach into suspects’ pockets and search suspects’ cars during traffic stops 

Right To Petition 

Gorsuch Ruled That Intimidating A Person To Keep Them From Filing Tax Grievances Violated The First 

Amendment. According to the Kansas City Star, “A couple of years ago, Van Deelen sued the Douglas County Board of 

Commissioners and five county officials, asserting they violated his First Amendment rights by intimidating him into dropping 

various tax assessment challenges. […] ‘We write today to reaffirm that the constitutionally enumerated right of a private 

citizen to petition the government for the redress of grievances does not pick and choose its causes but extends to matters 

great and small, public and private,’ the three-judge panel held. ‘Whatever the public significance or merit of Mr. Van Deelen’s 

petitions, they enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.’ The decision, written by Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, 

concluded ‘that a reasonable government official should have clearly understood at the time of the events at issue that physical 

and verbal intimidation in-tended to deter a citizen from pursuing a private tax complaint violates the citizen’s First 

Amendment right to petition for the redress of grievances.’” [Kansas City Star, 8/21/07] 

Religious Freedom 

DISPLAY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY 

Gorsuch Disagreed With A Court Ruling That The Ten Commandments Could Not Be Displayed On A Courthouse 

Lawn. According to the Journal Record, “The U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to resolve the controversy over a Ten 

Commandments monument on the Haskell County courthouse lawn, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Theriot said 

Friday. ‘We are planning on filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court,’ said Theriot, of Leawood, Kan. By a 6-6 

vote, the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined Thursday to rehear the June ruling of a three-judge panel, which held 

that the monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. […] Dissenting Judge Neil M. Gorsuch said 

that the three-judge panel’s opinion is inconsistent with the most analogous decision of the Supreme Court. ‘Whatever else 

might be said, if an inclusive display where the Decalogue makes an appearance was acceptable to the Supreme Court in Van 

Orden, similar displays should be acceptable to us,’ Gorsuch wrote. He was joined by Tacha, Kelly and Tymkovich.” [Journal 

Record, 8/23/09] 

MARIJUANA CHURCH 

Gorsuch Ruled Against A Couple Who Tried To Establish Their Marijuana Business As A Church. According to the 

Washington Post, “There are several examples of courts denying people religious privileges by calling into question whether 

they actually believe what they say they believe. For instance, Oleske points to a 2010 New Mexico case involving a couple that 

created a church around sacrament of marijuana. Citing these religious beliefs, in conjunction with the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act, Danuel and Mary Quaintance attempted to defend against criminal marijuana charges. The Tenth Circuit 

found theirs to be a flimsy argument. People testified that the Quaintances talked about their marijuana operation as a 

‘business’ not as a church. ‘[T]he record contains additional, overwhelming contrary evidence that the Quaintances were 

running a commercial marijuana business with a religious front,’ judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 2010 decision.” [Washington 

Post, 4/23/15] 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, GENERALLY 

Gorsuch, In Agreement With The Conservative Majority In Burwell V. Hobby Lobby, Said That The Constitution 

“Does Perhaps Its Most Important Work In Protecting Unpopular Religious Beliefs.” According to Washington Post, 

53

“Gorsuch‘s opinions favoring the owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores and the nonprofit religious group Little Sisters of 

the Poor took the same sort of broad reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the Supreme Court’s conservative 

majority. In Gorsuch‘s words, 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.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

HIGHWAY CROSSES 

Gorsuch Dissented To the Court’s Rejection Of A Retrial Regarding A Decision that Declared The State’s Use of 

Memorial Crosses On Public Land Unconstitutional. According to the Union-Tribune, “A federal appeals court has 

rejected a petition for a rehearing in a case involving 14 memorial crosses on Utah highways that an appellate panel said were 

unconstitutional. The Utah Highway Patrol Association, the Utah Department of Public Safety and two other state agencies 

sought a rehearing before the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel from the Denver court ruled in 

August that the 12-foot-high crosses represent a state endorsement of Christianity. The association and state agencies contend 

the memorials honor fallen officers and encourage safe driving. The groups argued that all 10 of the court’s judges should 

decide whether the panel’s opinion erroneously found that the placement of private monuments on public land with 

government permission amounts to government speech. The judges rejected a rehearing in a 5-4 ruling issued Monday. The 

court’s chief judge, Mary Beck Briscoe, recused herself. In dissenting opinions, Judges Paul J. Kelly and Neil M. Gorsuch said 

they don’t believe the U.S. Constitution requires all religion or religious expression to be purged from the public sphere, and 

the context of the symbol should be considered. […] The Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members, 

sued the state in 2005 over the use of the highway patrol’s logo on the crosses and said the structures should be removed. The 

group said the memorials infer that the troopers who died at each location were Christians. The white crosses were first 

erected in 1998 and are paid for with donations to the association. All but four of the crosses are on public land.” [Union- 

Tribune, 12/23/10] 

Court Interpreters 

2008: Gorsuch Ordered A Federal Court To Review A Previous Decision That An Immigrant Did Not Require An 

Interpreter. According to the Tulsa World, “A federal appeals court last week gave a Somali man in the U.S. on asylum an 

opportunity to have his 15-month prison sentence thrown out. In a decision handed down Tuesday, the Denver-based 10th 

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told a lower fed-eral court in Tulsa to review an earlier decision that said Hasan Ali Hasan of 

Tulsa did not require an inter-preter during grand jury proceedings. Hasan was granted an interpreter for his May 2006 trial, 

when he was convicted of perjury for statements he made about why he was fleeing Somalia. Federal law requires interpreters 

for defendants who would be hampered in court because they cannot fully understand English. In the court’s opinion, Judge 

Neil Gorsuch wrote that it is ‘reasonably plausible’ to assume that if Hasan needed an interpreter for the trial, he also required 

one during grand jury hearings. ‘We may be faced with the intolerable injustice of a man wrongly accused,’ Gorsuch wrote.” 

[Tulsa World, 5/25/08] 

Privacy 

SEARCH AND SEIZURE 

Gorsuch Ruled That A Police Officer Could Reach Into A Suspect’s Pockets During A Traffic Stop. According to the 

Albuquerque Journal, “‘Routine’ traffic stops are often anything but that, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals observes in 

affirming an Albuquerque Police Department officer’s decision to reach into a suspect’s pants pockets during just such a stop. 

Every year, thousands of law enforcement officers are assaulted, and many are killed, in what at first seem like routine stops 

for relatively minor traffic infractions, the court said in an recent opinion. ‘This case asks us to address what an officer may 

lawfully do to guard against adding himself to those re-grettable statistics,’ it said. ‘The Fourth Amendment is not a game of 

blind man’s bluff,’ Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in response to the defense argument that an officer may not take 

objects from a suspect’s pockets when he had no idea what they were.” [Albuquerque Journal, 12/26/11] 

54

Gorsuch Ruled That Police Officers Could Search A Suspect’s Car After A Traffic Stop. According to the Salt Lake 

Tribune, “‘The officers suspected something not at all good was afoot.’ Those officers — described in a recent federal court of 

appeals decision — had just responded to a tip about a prowler at a closed, under-construction apartment complex in North 

Salt Lake. It was Oct. 5, 2011, and they arrived to find Lance Petersen and his pickup truck. The officers detained Petersen 

and searched his vehicle, which led to Petersen being charged in 2nd District Court with two felonies and three misdemeanors 

for burglary, weapons and drug possession. The state charges were later dismissed when Petersen was indicted in U.S. District 

Court for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of marijuana. A federal court judge later granted Petersen’s 

request to suppress evidence in the case, agreeing that it had been collected illegally. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 

overturned that ruling last week in a decision penned by Judge Neil Gorsuch.” [Salt Lake Tribune, 5/24/13] 

55

CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFETY 


In 2013, after an officer killed a fleeing man by tasing him in the head, Gorsuch claimed all police officers had immunity 

from excessive force suits unless they were “plainly incompetent” or knowlingly violating the law 

Gorsuch claimed a police officer that put a nine-year-old in a twist lock did not use excessive force 

In 2008, Gorsuch ruled against the ACLU’s effort to certify mentally ill inmates as a class in order to more easily sue for 

prison reforms 

In 2011, Gorsuch that a 16 year sentence for a drunk driver who killed three people was too long 

Privacy 

Gorsuch Argused That Police Ignoring A “No Trespassing” Sign Did not Violate The 4 th Ammendment. According 

to ABC News, “When it comes to criminal procedure, he dissented in the United States v. Carlos case, arguing that police 

officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered a home that had a ‘No Trespassing’ sign posted.” [ABC News, 

1/26/17] 

Excessive Force 

POLICE IMMUNITY 

Gorsuch Argued That An Officer That Killed A Fleeing Man By Hitting Him On The Head With A Taser Did Not 

Use Excessive Force. According to Newsweek, “In 2013, the 10th Circuit threw out a lawsuit against the city of Lafayette, 

Colorado, and its police. The parents of Ryan Wilson, a 22-year-old who died after being stunned with a Taser as he ran from 

officers, brought the suit. Gorsuch ruled that an officer didn’t use excessive force when he hit Wilson in the head with the 

stun gun—and killed him—in 2006. The court upheld a District Court’s decision that the officer had qualified immunity, The 

Denver Post reported at the time.” [Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

Gorsuch Claimed That All Police Officers Had Immunity Unless They Were “Plainly Incompetent” Or Knowingly 

Violating The Law. According to the Denver Post, “‘We sympathize with the Wilsons over their terrible loss. But the 

Supreme Court has directed the lower fed-eral courts to apply qualified immunity broadly to protect .... all officers except ‘the 

plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,’ Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in affirming the district 

court decision.” [Denver Post, 2/22/13] 

GORSUCH CLAIMED A POLICE OFFICER THAT PUT A NINE-YEAR-OLD IN A 

TWIST LOCK DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE 

Gorsuch Ruled That A Police Officer Who Put A Nine-Year-Old In An Arm Twist Lock Did Not Use Excessive 

Force. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “After a 9-year-old boy stole an iPad from his Sandy elementary school in 2011, 

his principal wanted him charged with theft. A Sandy police officer called to the school ended up pushing the boy’s arm into a 

pain-ful twist lock before handcuffing him. The officer didn’t violate the boy’s constitutional rights, a three-judge panel of the 

10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed in a Friday ruling. But they split on the philosophical issue of how 

young offenders should be treated, with Judge Carlos Lucero of Colorado decrying how intertwining criminal justice and 

school discipline is creating a ‘school-to-prison’ pipeline. ‘Focusing narrowly on the legal standards applicable in this case 

renders it too easy to overlook the obvi-ous question: Why are we arresting nine-year-old schoolchildren?’ Lucero wrote. 

56

Judges Terrence O’Brien and Neil Gorsuch agreed it was regrettable that a police officer felt ‘a need to re-sort to physical 

force, handcuffs, and arrest’ to control the 67-pound boy, but said that ‘equally regrettable is the disrespectful, obdurate, and 

combative behavior of that nine-year-old child.’” [Salt Lake Tribune, 12/05/14] 

 

 

 

The Nine-Year-Old Had Been Sitting Quietly When The Officer Arrived. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, 

“When Albrand arrived, three school employees had gotten him under control and he was sitting calmly in a hallway. The 

principal, school psychologist and the boy’s grandmother were sitting on the other side of the hallway. The principal told 

Albrand she wanted to file theft charges, and the accounts of what happened next diverge. Albrand said she tried to talk 

with the boy but he didn’t reply. She placed her hands on his left hand and elbow to help him stand, she said, but he 

started twisting and grabbed her arm. Fearing he was trying to get her gun, Albrand said, she placed him in a twist lock 

and then put him in handcuffs. In a twist lock, an officer holds a suspect’s arm at his side with both hands and then twists 

the arm in a painful way to stop the person from fighting or resisting, court documents say.” [The Salt Lake Tribune, 

12/05/14] 

The Officer Claimed She Was Afraid The Nine-Year-Old Was trying To Grab Her Gun. According to The Salt 

Lake Tribune, “When Albrand arrived, three school employees had gotten him under control and he was sitting calmly in 

a hallway. The principal, school psychologist and the boy’s grandmother were sitting on the other side of the hallway. The 

principal told Albrand she wanted to file theft charges, and the accounts of what happened next diverge. Albrand said she 

tried to talk with the boy but he didn’t reply. She placed her hands on his left hand and elbow to help him stand, she said, 

but he started twisting and grabbed her arm. Fearing he was trying to get her gun, Albrand said, she placed him in a twist 

lock and then put him in handcuffs. In a twist lock, an officer holds a suspect’s arm at his side with both hands and then 

twists the arm in a painful way to stop the person from fighting or resisting, court documents say.” [The Salt Lake 

Tribune, 12/05/14] 

The Force Used On The Child May Have Caused A Fracture On His Colalrbone. According to The Salt Lake 

Tribune, “According to the 10th Circuit ruling, an X-ray showed a possible hairline fracture in the boy’s collarbone. The 

child’s grandparents, who are his legal guardians, say he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder because of the 

incident. They filed suit in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City against Albrand and Sandy, claiming that the officer used 

excessive force. […] The 10th Circuit ruling, written by O’Brien, said the key legal question was when Albrand used the 

twist lock. The judges agreed with Shelby that the officer used the hold after the boy grabbed her arm, and that its use in 

those circumstances did not constitute excessive force.” [The Salt Lake Tribune, 12/5/14] 

Gorsuch Opinion: “The Disrespectful, Obdurate, And Combative Behavior Of That Nine-Year-Old Child” Was 

“Equally Regrettable” To The Officer’s Actions. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “After a 9-year-old boy stole an iPad 

from his Sandy elementary school in 2011, his principal wanted him charged with theft. A Sandy police officer called to the 

school ended up pushing the boy’s arm into a pain-ful twist lock before handcuffing him. The officer didn’t violate the boy’s 

constitutional rights, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed in a Friday ruling. But 

they split on the philosophical issue of how young offenders should be treated, with Judge Carlos Lucero of Colorado 

decrying how intertwining criminal justice and school discipline is creating a ‘school-to-prison’ pipeline. ‘Focusing narrowly on 

the legal standards applicable in this case renders it too easy to overlook the obvi-ous question: Why are we arresting nineyear-old 

schoolchildren?’ Lucero wrote. Judges Terrence O’Brien and Neil Gorsuch agreed it was regrettable that a police 

officer felt ‘a need to re-sort to physical force, handcuffs, and arrest’ to control the 67-pound boy, but said that ‘equally 

regrettable is the disrespectful, obdurate, and combative behavior of that nine-year-old child.’” [Salt Lake Tribune, 12/05/14] 

Mentally Ill Inmates 

2008: Gorsuch Ruled Against The ACLU’s Effort To Certify Mentally Ill Inmates As A Class. According to the 

Gazette, “A federal appeals court dealt a setback Friday to the American Civil Liberties Union in its effort to force broad 

reforms to how El Paso County treats mentally ill jail inmates. A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 

in Denver upheld a lower court's ruling that denied the ACLU's motion to have mentally ill inmates treated as a class. […] 

Judge Neil Gorsuch, writing for the three-judge panel, upheld the federal District Court ruling that certifying the inmates as a 

class would be impossible because ‘there was no single policy or procedure to which all were subject.’ Creating orders to 

reform the jail based on only the plaintiffs’ widely varying complaints would require a ‘stratospheric level of abstraction,’ 

Gorsuch wrote.” [Gazette, 9/03/08] 

57

The ACLU’s Efforts Would Have Allowed Them To File A Class Action Suit For Prison Reforms. According to the 

Gazette, “A federal appeals court dealt a setback Friday to the American Civil Liberties Union in its effort to force broad 

reforms to how El Paso County treats mentally ill jail inmates. A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Denver upheld a lower court’s ruling that denied the ACLU’s motion to have mentally ill inmates treated as a class. Class 

action status would have allowed the ACLU to argue for sweeping changes, such as requiring the county to ‘provide safe and 

appropriate housing for prisoners with serious mental health needs.’ Without that status, the organization’s National Prison 

Project can proceed in court only with individual inmate com-plaints.” [Gazette, 9/03/08] 

Death Penalty 

Gorsuch Ruled That The Use Of Pentobarbital In Executions Was Constitutional. According to the Oklahoman, “An 

appeals court on Tuesday allowed Oklahoma to proceed with executions, including one Thursday, using a new lethal injection 

drug. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by death row inmate Jeffrey David Matthews that the drug, 

pentobarbital, could result in cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. […] The appellate judges 

based their decision in large part on the testimony of the state’s witness, a medical doctor who is a professor of anesthesiology 

at the University of Massachusetts, who disputed the testimo-ny of Matthews’ witness. The judges said the state’s witness ‘has 

substantially more clinical experience with the use of pentobarbi-tal’ than does Matthews’ witness. Tenth Circuit Judge Jerome 

Holmes, of Oklahoma City, joined Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, of Law-rence, Kan., and Neil Gorsuch, of Denver, in the 

decision.” [Oklahoman, 12/15/10] 

2015: Gorsuch Upheld The Death Sentence Of A Murderer. According to the Daily Oklahoman, “The 10th U.S. Circuit 

Court of Appeals split 2-1 Tuesday to uphold the Oklahoma death sentence of Scott Eizember, who went on a deadly crime 

spree in 2003.One judge on a three-judge panel said the death sentence should be overturned because a juror should not have 

been allowed on the jury. Eizember was sen-tenced to be executed for the bludgeoning death of A.J. Cantrell, 76, and to 150 

years in prison in the shotgun slaying of Patsy Cantrell, 70, at their Depew home. ‘Scott Eizember left a Tulsa jail intent on 

settling a score,’ ;Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Denver-based appeals court, wrote in a 34-page decision. ‘He was upset with his 

ex-girlfriend, Kathy Biggs, because she had tipped off authorities about his violation of a protective order. ‘Eizember had 

broken into the Cantrells’ home to watch and wait for his ex-girlfriend to return to her mother’s house across the street. 

Eizember also was convicted of shooting with intent to kill against Tyler Montgomery, the 16-year-old son of Biggs, and 

assault with a dangerous weapon against Karla Wright, Biggs’ mother.” [Daily Oklahoman, 9/16/15] 

Gun Crime 

Gorsuch Ruled that A Man Who Shot Two People But Only Fired His Gun Once Could Be Tried For Two Counts 

Of Using A Firearm To Commit A Violent Crime. According to the Deseret Morning News, “The federal murder case 

against a man accused of killing one person and wounding another is headed to trial after a ruling from the 10th Circuit Court 

of Appeals and a new indictment. Philbert Rentz is accused of firing a single shot that passed through the body of Verveen 

Dawes and into the heart of Tedrick Francis, who was standing behind him. Dawes survived the shooting, which happened in 

July 2011 at a Navajo Nation housing complex in Aneth, San Juan County. Francis, however, died at the scene. Rentz was 

indicted one month later on charges of murder while within Indian Country, assault resulting in serious bodily injury while 

within Indian Country, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The federal grand jury assigned to the case also indicted 

him on two counts of using a firearm to commit a violent crime. That’s where the case hit a snag. Lawyers for Rentz argued 

that he only fired the gun once; therefore, charging him with two counts of using a firearm amounted to double jeopardy. A 

federal judge agreed and dismissed one of the counts. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for Utah challenged that decision, arguing 

that one count was connected to the murder charge and the other was connected to the assault charge. In November 2013, a 

three-judge panel from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with federal prosecu-tors and reinstated the second charge 

for use of a firearm. The defense appealed the ruling and asked the entire 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to look at the case. In 

February, the majority of the court ruled that the second charge should have been dismissed. The ruling came after an 

extended analysis of the statutory language, which Judge Neil Gorsuch - writing for the majority - described as ‘a bramble of 

prepositional phrases’ that ‘may excite the grammar teacher’ but have ‘certainly kept the federal courts busy.’ ‘Our job is always 

in the first instance to follow Congress’ directions,’ Gorsuch wrote. ‘But if those direc-tions are unclear, the tie goes to the 

58

presumptively free citizen and not the prosecutor. Here that means the government must prove both a use, carry or 

possession (of a firearm during a violent crime), as well as a qualifying crime.’” [Deseret Morning News, 4/03/15] 

Sentencing Guidelines 

Gorsuch Ruled A Drunk Driver Who Killed Three People Must Be Resentenced Because Her Sentence Of 16 Years 

Was Too Long. According to Albuquerque Journal, “An Isleta woman who has been sentenced twice in the same case to 

hefty federal prison time for a 2005 drunken-driving crash that killed three people will be sentenced yet again based on an 

appeals court’s order. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the first sentencing judge’s 18-year sentence for 

Camille Lente and ordered her to be resentenced by a new judge, has now said the second judge’s 16-year prison sentence was 

‘procedurally unreasonable.’ The principal reason is that when Lente was given much more time than the range specified by 

the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the sentencing judge failed to show that he had considered the guidelines’ goal of making 

sentences uniform for similar circumstances. The appellate court sent the case back to U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson 

for another resentencing, acknowledging that the end result could well be the same. At her resentencing last August, Johnson 

found that the guidelines sentence of roughly four to five years would not reflect the seriousness of the offense, nor would it 

deter Lente from criminal conduct or protect the public.” [Albuquerque Journal, 8/24/11] 

59

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 


In 2010, Gorsuch ruled the EPA “is at liberty to adopt without notice and comment a reasonable interpretation of that 

ambiguous regulation.” 

Gorsuch rule dthat a Colorado law requiring utility providers to get 30% of their electricity from renewable sources was 

constitutional 

EPA 

Gorsuch Ruled That The EPA Could Enforce Hazardous Waste Laws At A Magnesium Plant In Utah. According to 

the Salt Lake Tribune, “Federal regulators may well have the authority after all to decide how a Utah magnesium plant 

manages its hazardous waste, under a Denver appeals court's ruling released Tuesday. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 

threw out an Oct. 17, 2007, decision by U.S. District Judge Dee Benson that US Magnesium in Tooele County is exempted 

from the nation's cradle-to-grave hazardous waste law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In short, the 

appeals court said the Environmental Protection Agency can update its ‘tentative’ interpretation of a regulation into a final one 

without additional public input. It ordered Benson to reconsider the case. ‘Even under the case law U.S. Magnesium asks us to 

follow, the agency is at liberty to adopt without notice and comment a reasonable interpretation of that ambiguous regulation,’ 

said the opinion written by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch and joined by the two other judges on the appeals panel. Although neither 

side has said what it will do next, it is possible the ruling will finally settle the two-decade-old question about the EPA's ability 

to enforce the hazardous waste law at the magnesium plant, about 45 miles west of Salt Lake City on the southwest shore of 

the Great Salt Lake.” [Salt Lake Tribune. 8/17/10] 

 

Gorsuch: The EPA “Is At Liberty To Adopt Without Notice And Comment A Reasonable Interpretation Of 

That Ambiguous Regulation.” According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “Federal regulators may well have the authority 

after all to decide how a Utah magnesium plant manages its hazardous waste, under a Denver appeals court's ruling 

released Tuesday. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out an Oct. 17, 2007, decision by U.S. District Judge Dee 

Benson that US Magnesium in Tooele County is exempted from the nation's cradle-to-grave hazardous waste law, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In short, the appeals court said the Environmental Protection 

Agency can update its ‘tentative’ interpretation of a regulation into a final one without additional public input. It 

ordered Benson to reconsider the case. ‘Even under the case law U.S. Magnesium asks us to follow, the agency is at 

liberty to adopt without notice and comment a reasonable interpretation of that ambiguous regulation,’ said the 

opinion written by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch and joined by the two other judges on the appeals panel. Although neither 

side has said what it will do next, it is possible the ruling will finally settle the two-decade-old question about the 

EPA's ability to enforce the hazardous waste law at the magnesium plant, about 45 miles west of Salt Lake City on the 

southwest shore of the Great Salt Lake.” [Salt Lake Tribune. 8/17/10] 

Nuclear Waste 

Gorsuch Granted $700 Million To Property Owners Who Had Their Land Contaminated With Plutonium From The 

Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. According to Legal Monitor Worldwide, “More than 25 years ago, eight Coloradoans 

agreed to serve as the representatives for a class of about 13,000 property owners who believed the Rocky Flats nuclear 

weapons plant had contaminated their land with radioactive plutonium. In late 2005, after 15 years of pre-trial motions 

practice against the federal con-tractors Dow Chemical and Rockwell International, the case finally went to a four-month trial. 

Jurors deliber-ated for 17 days, answering a 30-page jury form, before returning a verdict of $177 million in compensatory 

damages and $200 million in punitive. With pre-trial interest, the compensatory damages alone topped $700 million. In 2011, 

the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wiped out the jury verdict, holding that the trial judge was too expansive in instructing 

the jury about what constitutes a nuclear incident. On Tuesday, a different 10th Circuit panel gave back what the appeals court 

took away in 2011. The 38-page majority opinion by Judge Neil Gorsuch is worth reading for a couple of reasons. First, it’s a 

60

surprisingly gripping story of legal strategy. The judge, who clerked for two different U.S. Supreme Court justices and is often 

mentioned as a possible Republican Supreme Court nominee, shows how lawyers’ decisions can re-verberate in unexpected 

ways. Here, a big risk by plaintiffs’ lawyers at Berger & Montague paid off, but the argument that worked so well for Dow and 

Rockwell in their first trip to the 10th Circuit ended up backfiring badly.” [Legal Monitor Worldwide, 6/26/15] 

Renewable Energy 

Gorsuch Ruled That A Colorado Law Requiring Utility Providers To Get 30% Of Their Electricity From Renewable 

Sources Was Constitutional. According to the Denver Post, “A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a lawsuit claiming 

that Colorado’s renewable energy standard violates the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit was brought by the Washington based 

Energy & Environment Legal Institute, a free market oriented litigation group. Colorado is requiring investor owned utilities 

to get 30 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Because the electric grid that Colorado is tied to covers 11 states, 

EELI argued the renewable mandate lim-its out of state coal plants from selling electricity. The three judge panel of the 10th 

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judge Neil Gorsuch said in his decision that the standard did not meet the test of 

restraint of trade. ‘It 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,’ Gorsuch wrote.” [Denver Post, 7/14/15] 

61

GOVERNMENT AND CAMPAIGN REFORM 


Gorsuch supported term limits 

In 2014, Gorsuch ruled against a Colorado law that gave higher campaign finance limits to major parties 

Term Limits 

GORSUCH CLAIMED STATE-IMPOSED TERM LIMITS WOULD BE 

CONSTIUTIONAL 

George Will Op-Ed: Gorsuch Co-Wrote An Essay Arguing Term Limits Should Be Understood As Regulations On 

Elections. According to an op-ed by George Will, “Opponents of term limits hope to get the Supreme Court to declare 

unconstitutional all state-imposed term limits on Congress. Their position is not frivolous but is answered by Neil Gorsuch 

and Michael Guzman, two recent Harvard Law graduates, in an essay published by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank 

in Washington. The Constitution’s ‘qualifications’ clauses stipulate that House and Senate members must be 25 and 30 years 

old respectively, must have been citizens for seven and nine years respectively and must be inhabit-ants of the states from 

which they are elected. Another clause assigns to states the right to regulate ‘the times, places and manner’ of holding 

elections, subject to congressional override. Opponents of term limits say limits impose a fourth ‘qualification’ -- a candidate 

cannot be a long-term incumbent. The Supreme Court has held that supplementing the three enumerated qualifications (age, 

citizenship, inhabitancy) would require a constitutional amendment. However, Gorsuch and Guzman argue that term limits are 

better understood as regulations affecting the ‘manner’ of elections by enhancing the com-petitive nature of the process. The 

Supreme Court has, for example, upheld as a ‘manner’ regulation a state requirement that candidates have party affiliation.” 

[Op-ed- George Will, 10/01/92] 

Neil Gorsuch Argued State-Imposed Term Limits That Applied To That State’s Congressional Delegation Would 

Be Constitutionally Permissible. According to a Cato Institute Policy Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “In short, term 

limit opponents appear increasingly willing--perhaps even anxious--to avoid any debate over the merits of state-imposed term 

limits, embracing instead the comfortable notion that it is pointless to consider a patently unconstitutional measure. House 

Speaker Thomas Foley put the proposition most succinctly: ‘Any constitutional lawyer worth his salt will tell you [term limits 

are] a sham.’[2] We beg to differ. Although the constitutional case for term limits is not beyond doubt, it can hardly be 

characterized as frivolous. Hoping to move the ongoing debate over term limits from the legal realm to a discussion of their 

merits, we argue here that a state-imposed limit on the terms of that state’s congressional delegation is constitutionally 

permissible.” [Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman, “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178: Will the Gentlemen Please Yield?- 

-A Defense of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations,” 9/24/92] 

Argued That The Framers Intentions In Institutional Checks Could Include Term Limits 

Gorsuch Argued The Framers’ Intentions In Designing “Institutional Checks Designed To Prevent Abuse Of The 

Enormous Powers” Of The Legislative Branch Could Analogously Include Term Limits. According to a Cato Institute 

Policy Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “We begin this study with an examination of U.S constitutional history and find 

that a term limit is entirely consistent with the Framers’ intentions. Recognizing that men are not angels, the Framers of the 

Constitution put in place a number of institutional checks designed to prevent abuse of the enormous powers they had vested 

in the legislative branch. Bicameralism, frequent elections, staggered terms, differing qualifications, shared and exclusive 

powers, and state control over election procedures are all examples of the mechanisms the Framers crafted with the hope of 

ensuring a responsive yet responsible legislature. A term limit, we suggest, is simply an analogous procedure designed to 

advance much the same substantive end.” [Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman, “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178: Will 

the Gentlemen Please Yield?--A Defense of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations,” 9/24/92] 

62

Gorsuch And Guzman: “Although A Limit Was Not Written Into The Constitution, Its Absence Suggests Not That 

The Framers Thought One Inimical To Their Project But Only That It Was Unnecessary In Light Of The 

Numerous Restrictions They Had Imposed On The National Legislature.” According to a Cato Institute Policy 

Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “Opponents of term limits frequently emphasize the absence of a limit on 

congressional terms in the Constitution as evidence that the Framers intended to preclude such a measure.[5] This argument 

ignores both the principles of government that influenced the Framers and the concrete analogs to term limits that they 

included in the Constitution. Although a limit was not written into the Constitution, its absence suggests not that the Framers 

thought one inimical to their project but only that it was unnecessary in light of the numerous restrictions they had imposed 

on the national legislature.” [Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman, “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178: Will the Gentlemen 

Please Yield?--A Defense of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations,” 9/24/92] 

Gorsuch And Guzman: “Article I Doctrine, Upon Which Term Limit Opponents Rely So Heavily, Indicates That A 

Limit Is More Likely To Be Deemed A Constitutional Manner Restriction Than An Inappropriate Qualification 

Restriction.” According to a Cato Institute Policy Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “As discussed, the absence of a term 

limitation provision in the Constitution hardly bespeaks an intention on the part of the Framers to foreclose the subsequent 

legislative imposition of term limits by the states. Article I doctrine, upon which term limit opponents rely so heavily, indicates 

that a limit is more likely to be deemed a constitutional manner restriction than an inappropriate qualification restriction. 

Moreover, the First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees offer incumbents little hope. In the end, we believe that the fate 

of term limits will not be decided by the courts, as nervous incumbents might wish, but in a fashion far more familiar to those 

they would displace--through the ballot box.” [Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman, “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178: 

Will the Gentlemen Please Yield?--A Defense of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations,” 9/24/92] 

Claimed State Control Of Elections Gave Each State The Power To Impose Term Limits 

Gorsuch: Constitutional Provisions Granting State’s The Right To Determine Details Of Elections “Fully 

Empowers States To Enforce Term Limits On Members Of Their Congressional Delegations.” According to a Cato 

Institute Policy Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “Similarly, the text of the Constitution leaves room for term limits. 

Article I, section 4, explicitly grants the states wide latitude to determine the times, places, and manner of congressional 

elections. This provision, in our judgment, fully empowers states to enforce term limits on members of their congressional 

delegations. Moreover, a term limit is harmonious with our constitutional guarantees of free speech or equal protection.” [Neil 

Gorsuch and Michael Guzman, “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178: Will the Gentlemen Please Yield?--A Defense of the 

Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations,” 9/24/92] 

Gorsuch Argued Against The View That Term Limits Would Add A Fourth Qualification, On Top Of The Three 

Laid Out In Article 1, Sections 2 And 3 Of The Constitution, But Was Merely A Regulation Affecting The “Manner” 

Of An Election. According to a Cato Institute Policy Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “Article I, sections 2 and 3, 

which are referred to here as the ‘qualifications clauses,’ establish three qualifications for membership in the Congress: at the 

time of their election, (1) members of the House of Representatives must have attained the age of twenty five and Senators 

must be at least thirty; (2) members of the House and Senate must be U.S. citizens for at least seven and nine years, 

respectively; and (3) members of both houses must be inhabitants of the state from which they were elected. Article I, section 

4, deals with the regulation of congressional elections. As mentioned, it assigns states the task of regulating the ‘Times, Places 

and Manner’ of congressional elections, albeit subject to congressional override. Opponents of term limits commonly insist 

that a term limit would impose a de facto fourth qualification upon the Congress--namely that a candidate not be a long-term 

incumbent. The reason for their argument is obvious: if labeled a qualification, a term limit would not likely survive 

constitutional scrutiny because in Powell v. McCormack[33] the Supreme Court held that the Congress may not supplement 

the three enumerated qualifications. […] In our view, a term limit is better considered a regulation affecting the ‘manner’ of an 

election than a qualification. As a manner regulation, a term limit is constitutional because states have explicit textual authority 

to regulate congressional elections under section 4. It is worth noting at this point that since Congress may override a state 

election regulation at will under section 4, a state could not enact a term limit without congressional acquiescence.” [Neil 



Argued There Was No “Fundamental Right” To Run For Office 

63

Gorsuch Argued Term Limits Would Not Impede Upon A Citizen’s “Fundamental Right” To Run For Office As 

The Court Has Struck Down Past Arguments That There Was Any “Fundamental Right” To Run For Office. 

According to a Cato Institute Policy Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “In 1968, when the Supreme Court first struck 

down a ballot access regulation, it did so on the ground that the regulation inappropriately discriminated against minority party 

candidates.[63] In the wake of that decision, some commentators suggested that the Court was prepared to announce --or 

already had announced--that there is a ‘fundamental right’ to run for office rendering all regulation of that right subject to a 

searching form of scrutiny.[64] Those suggestions proved misguided, however, as in 1972 the Court made plain that it had not 

recognized any such right.[65] More recently, in Clements v. Fashing,[66] the Court put to rest any doubt about the potential 

viability of a ‘fundamental right’ to candidacy when it held that restrictions on candidacy need bear only a rational relationship 

to a legitimate state end. Thus, it seems evident that any challenge to a term limit on this basis is likely to fall on deaf ears.[67]” 

[Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman, “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178: Will the Gentlemen Please Yield?--A Defense 

of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations,” 9/24/92] 

Gorsuch And Guzman: “Congressional Incumbents Are Largely A Group Of White (93 Percent),[70] Males (95 

Percent),[71] Who Also Happen To Be Disproportionately Rich” And Therefore Not A Protected Class. According to 

a Cato Institute Policy Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “Incumbents, of course, would have a hard time convincing a 

court that they fit within the two suspect classifications firmly established by the Supreme Court. Congressional incumbents 

are largely a group of white (93 percent),[70] males (95 percent),[71] who also happen to be disproportionately rich (11 percent 

of the House are millionaires, and 26 percent of the Senate also enjoy this status)[72]; it would be ironic at the very least were 

they to plead successfully for protection under a constitutional clause initially intended to serve newly freed slaves.” [Neil 



Claimed Term Limits Promote Strong Societal Interests 

Gorsuch And Guzman: “A Term Limit Promotes Strong Societal Interests.” According to a Cato Institute Policy 

Analysis coauthored by Neil Gorsuch, “On the other side of the balance, a term limit promotes strong societal interests. The 

hope of maintaining a representative democracy and limiting the influence of unfair electoral advantages has moved 

legislatures and courts to enact and approve bold measures in the past that restrict certain individuals at least as severely as a 

term limit. In sum, once over the qualifications hurdle, the fight on First and Fourteenth amendment grounds looks very 

promising for term limit proponents.” [Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman, “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 178: Will the 

Gentlemen Please Yield?--A Defense of the Constitutionality of State-Imposed Term Limitations,” 9/24/92] 

Campaign Finance 

Gorsuch Overturned A Colorado Law That Gave Major Party Candidates Higher Fundraiser Limits. According to the 

Durango Herald, “Former La Plata County Commissioner Joelle Riddle triumphed Thursday in a lawsuit to overturn 

Colorado’s campaign-finance law for unaffiliated candidates. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that 

Colorado’s law is unconstitutional because it allows Democratic and Republican candidates to collect $400 per donor, while 

unaffiliated and minor party candidates can take only $200 in most cases. […] State law has different limits for major- and 

minor-party candidates. It allows Republicans and Democrats to collect an extra $200 per donor because they sometimes have 

intra-party primaries. But the law allows them to spend all their money on the general election if they wish. That discriminates 

against donors to candidates like Curry, the court ruled. ‘When it really comes down to it, the only reason I can imagine for 

Colorado’s (law) is a bald desire to help major party candidates at the expense of minor party candidates,’ Circuit Judge Neil 

Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.” [Durango Herald, 1/23/14] 

64

HEALTH CARE 


Gorsuch wrote a book called “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” in which he argued against death with 

dignity laws 

Death With Dignity 

Gorsuch Opposed Death With Dignity Laws. According to ABC News, “He is the author of ‘The Future of Assisted 

Suicide and Euthanasia,’ which looks at the legal and ethical issues surrounding assisted suicides. In the book, he concludes 

that any form of euthanasia should not be legalized.” [ABC News, 1/26/17] 

Gorsuch Wrote A Book Called “The Future Of Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia.” According to ABC News, “He is the 

author of ‘The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,’ which looks at the legal and ethical issues surrounding assisted 

suicides. In the book, he concludes that any form of euthanasia should not be legalized.” [ABC News, 1/26/17] 

Neil Gorsuch Wrote A Book Making A Legal And Moral Argument Against Assisted Suicide. According to CNN, 

“Although Gorsuch has written on issues such as the contraceptive mandate and even penned a book making a legal and 

moral argument against assisted suicide, he has never had the opportunity to write an opinion on Roe v. Wade. That has raised 

only a few eyebrows in pro-life circles, others express complete confidence that he won’t disappoint them on that front.” 

[CNN, 1/24/17] 

Neil Gorsuch Published “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” A Book That Argued Against Legalizing 

Assisted Suicide. According to The Denver Post, “Gorsuch broke into book publishing 10 years ago with ‘The Future of 

Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,’ which examines legal, religious and ethical issues and argues against legalization a subject 

with particular resonance for Coloradans after passage of an aid in dying measure on the November ballot. But in terms of 

hinting at his judicial approach, Kourlis said, the book might be most useful as a window onto the way he analyzes issues. 

‘That would be that he really looks at 360 degrees of an issue and of the ramifications and implications of deciding one way or 

another,’ Kourlis said. ‘Having studied the human condition is part of what he enjoys and brings to everything he does.’” 

[Denver Post, 12/11/16] 

Malpractice Insurance 

2004: Gorsuch Represented Columbia Hospital For Women. According to the Washington Post, “A D.C. Superior Court 

jury awarded the defunct Columbia Hospital for Women Medical Center $18.2 million in damages, agreeing with the hospital 

that a malpractice insurance company had overcharged for premiums and encouraged doctors to practice elsewhere. Officials 

for the insurer, NCRIC Group Inc., said that the verdict, if upheld, could threaten its viability. A failure by NCRIC could force 

many of the doctors it covers to leave the District, a company official said. The jury rejected claims by NCRIC in a 2000 

lawsuit that Columbia had failed to pay $3 million in premiums and interest. The hospital denied the allegation, 

counterclaiming that it was owed damages by NCRIC. NCRIC denied those allegations. The 136-year-old hospital closed in 

May 2002, citing severe financial problems. Columbia attorney Neil M. Gorsuch said of the verdict, returned on Friday: ‘We 

feel that justice was done and are gratified that the jury, after a 21/2-week trial and significant deliberations, rendered a verdict 

con-firming that NCRIC tortiously interfered with the operations of Columbia Hospital for Women.’” [Washington Post, 

2/18/04] 

Columbia Hospital For Women Won $18.2 Million In Damages From A Malpractice Insurance Company That 

Overcharged Them. According to the Washington Post, “A D.C. Superior Court jury awarded the defunct Columbia 

Hospital for Women Medical Center $18.2 million in damages, agreeing with the hospital that a malpractice insurance 

company had overcharged for premiums and encouraged doctors to practice elsewhere. Officials for the insurer, NCRIC 

Group Inc., said that the verdict, if upheld, could threaten its viability. A failure by NCRIC could force many of the doctors it 

65

covers to leave the District, a company official said. The jury rejected claims by NCRIC in a 2000 lawsuit that Columbia had 

failed to pay $3 million in premiums and interest. The hospital denied the allegation, counterclaiming that it was owed damages 

by NCRIC. NCRIC denied those allegations. The 136-year-old hospital closed in May 2002, citing severe financial problems. 

Columbia attorney Neil M. Gorsuch said of the verdict, returned on Friday: ‘We feel that justice was done and are gratified 

that the jury, after a 21/2-week trial and significant deliberations, rendered a verdict con-firming that NCRIC tortiously 

interfered with the operations of Columbia Hospital for Women.’” [Washington Post, 2/18/04] 

Concussions 

Neil Gorsuch Affirmed The $1 Billion NFL Concussion Settlement. According to Star-News, “Last year, he joined two 

3rd Circuit colleagues in affirming the $1 billion settlement of NFL concussion claims, rejecting complaints that men with 

depression and mood disorders were left out of the deal.” [Star-News, 1/25/17] 

66

JUDICIAL AFFAIRS 


Gorsuch supports the “Nondelegation Doctrine” a legal principle that progressives believe constrain the ability of federal 

agencies to carry out their statutory missions. 

Gorsuch opposes what he calls “judicial activism” 

Gorsuch is a Textualist and an Originalist who believes judges should use “text, structure and history” to understand what 

the law is, “not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve 

society best.” 

Gorsuch opposes the “Chevron Doctrine,” a legal principle giving power to government agencies when a law is 

considered ambiguous. 

Ideology 

CONFIRMATION PROCESS 

Gorsuch: Political Confirmation Processes Make Judges “Little More Than Politicians With Robes.” According to 

the Denver Post, “Gorsuch’s nomination goes to a Senate committee. The hearings could include questions about his political 

leanings. His published works suggest he is a conservative who has strong feelings about the role of the judiciary. In ‘Liberals 

n’ Lawsuits,’ published in 2005 in the National Review, he said that liberals’ ‘addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate 

social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.’ He wrote that the politicized confirmation process leaves judges 

at risk for being treated as ‘little more than politicians with robes.’” [Denver Post, 5/10/06] 

Gorsuch Lamented The “Politicization Of The Judiciary” And The “Judiciary’s Diminishing Claim To Neutrality 

And Independence” As Seen Through Cumbersome Confirmation Process Focused On “Ideological Litmus Tests” 

And “Interest-Group Attacks.” According to a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “At the same time, the 

politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has–its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and 

their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the 

judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a 

recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely 

confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group 

attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated 

as little more than politicians with robes.” [National Review, 2/7/05] 

Gorsuch: “As Republicans Win Presidential And Senate Elections” They Will “Gain Increasing Control Over The 

Judicial Appointment And Confirmation Process” Leaving “The Left Truly Out In The Cold.” According to a column 

by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “Finally, in the greatest of ironies, as Republicans win presidential and Senate elections 

and thus gain increasing control over the judicial appointment and confirmation process, the level of sympathy liberals pushing 

constitutional litigation can expect in the courts may wither over time, leaving the Left truly out in the cold.” [National Review, 

2/7/05] 

SOCIAL POLICY 

Gorsuch: Liberals’ “Addiction To The Courtroom As The Place To Debate Social Policy Is Bad For The Country 

And Bad For The Judiciary.” According to the Denver Post, “Gorsuch’s nomination goes to a Senate committee. The 

hearings could include questions about his political leanings. His published works suggest he is a conservative who has strong 

67

feelings about the role of the judiciary. In ‘Liberals n’ Lawsuits,’ published in 2005 in the National Review, he said that liberals’ 

‘addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.’ He wrote that 

the politicized confirmation process leaves judges at risk for being treated as ‘little more than politicians with robes.’” [Denver 

Post, 5/10/06] 



the Denver Post, “Gorsuch’s published works show conservative leanings. In a 2005 article in the National Review, 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.’” [Denver Post, 7/21/06] 



a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured critical civil-right 

victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But rather than use the 

judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes 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 on 

everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. [National Review, 

2/7/05] 

Gorsuch: Liberals’ Reliance On Court Decisions Removes The Practice Of Compromise In The Legislative Arena. 

According to a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to 

debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is 

closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little 

room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose.” [National Review, 2/7/05] 

JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY 

Gorsuch On His Judicial Philosophy: “I Resist Pigeonholes. They Aren’t Terribly Helpful.” According to the Denver 

Post, “During the brief questioning, Graham asked Gorsuch to describe his judicial philosophy. ‘I resist pigeonholes. They 

aren’t terribly helpful,’ Gorsuch said. ‘People do unexpected things. Pigeonholes ignore gray areas in the law.’ Gorsuch said his 

approach to deciding cases was to pay attention to arguments made by the lawyers presenting the case, to try to reach 

unanimity with his colleagues on the bench, and to respect court precedent.” [Denver Post, 6/22/06] 

Daniel Goldberg Of The Alliance For Justice Said Neil Gorsuch Has Advocated The “Nondelegation Doctrine” 

That Constrains The Ability Of Federal Agencies To Carry Out Their Statutory Missions. According to Newsday, 

“Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the progressive Alliance for Justice, said Trump wants to install ‘radical reactionaries’ on 

the Supreme Court. ‘Looking at their records, many of them are worse than Scalia,’ Goldberg said of the finalists. For instance, 

Goldberg noted that Gorsuch made the case for the ‘nondelegation doctrine’ that Goldberg said constrains the ability of 

federal agencies to carry out their statutory missions. ‘He’s espousing doctrines that Justice Scalia had rejected,’ Goldberg said. 

Proponents of the doctrine say it safeguards individual liberties and ensures that elected officials make major policy decisions, 

not unelected administrators. Gorsuch, a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, practices ‘originalism,’ or 

the interpretation of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended in their time, and ‘textualism’ - literal reading of 

statutes.” [Newsday, 1/30/17] 

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM 

Gorsuch: Legislators “May Appeal To Their Own Moral Convictions And To Claims About Social Utility To 

Reshape The Law As They Think It Should Be In The Future” But “Judges Should Do None Of These Things In A 

Democratic Society.” According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to federal 

agencies and is most noted for a strong defense of religious exemptions in cases brought by private companies and religious 

nonprofit groups objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that 

as a judge he had tried to follow Scalia’s path. ‘The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences 

68

etween judges and legislators,’ Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. 

Legislators ‘may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it 

should be in the future,’ Gorsuch said. But ‘judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.’ Instead, they 

should use ‘text, structure and history’ to understand what the law is, ‘not to decide cases based on their own moral 


Gorsuch: “In Constitutional Litigation” Americans “Lose The Benefit Of The Give-And-Take Of The Political 

Process And The Flexibility Of Social Experimentation That Only The Elected Branches Can Provide.” According 

to a column by Neil Gorsuch in National Review, “In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world 

laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract 

world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and 

the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.” [National Review, 2/7/05] 

STATE’S RIGHTS 

Professor Justin Marceau: Gorsuch Was “A Predictably Socially Conservative Judge Who Tends To Favor State 

Power Over Federal Power.” According to the Denver Post, “Justin Marceau, a professor at the University of Denver’s 

Sturm College of Law who has litigated civil rights and death penalty cases, describes Gorsuch as ‘a predictably socially 

conservative judge who tends to favor state power over federal power.’ That kind of deference, Marceau adds, can create a 

difficult obstacle for civil rights cases, which often try to reel in ‘rogue’ state laws.” [Denver Post, 12/11/16] 

Legal Interpretation 

TEXTUALISM 

Proponent 

Gorsuch: Judges Should Use “Text, Structure And History” To Understand What The Law Is, “Not To Decide 

Cases Based On Their Own Moral Convictions Or The Policy Consequences They Believe Might Serve Society 

Best.” According to Washington Post, “Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to federal agencies and is 

most noted for a strong defense of religious exemptions in cases brought by private companies and religious nonprofit groups 

objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that as a judge he had 

tried to follow Scalia’s path. ‘The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and 

legislators,’ Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. Legislators ‘may appeal 

to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future,’ 

Gorsuch said. But ‘judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.’ Instead, they should use ‘text, structure and 

history’ to understand what the law is, ‘not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the pol-icy consequences 

they believe might serve society best.’” [Washington Post, 1/29/17] 

New York Times: Gorsuch “Is A Textualist, Focusing On The Language Of Statutes Rather Than What Lawmakers 

Have Had To Say About Them.” According to The New York Times, “Judge Gorsuch ‘s credentials, erudition and more 

muted stances could smooth his confirmation chances, at least as compared with Judge Pryor. Appointed to the appeals court 

by President George W. Bush in 2006, Judge Gorsuch , 49, has a legal approach that mirrors that of Justice Scalia. He is an 

originalist, meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution consistently with the understanding of those who drafted and 

adopted it. And he is a textualist, focusing on the language of statutes rather than what lawmakers have had to say about 

them.” [New York Times, 1/24/17] 

Gorsuch Has Contended That Courts Give Too Much Deference To Government Agencies’ Interpretations Of 

Statutes. According to Star-News, “He has contended that courts give too much deference to government agencies 

interpretations of statutes.” [Star-News, 1/25/17] 

69

Neil Gorsuch: Judges Should “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.” According to CNN, “In a speech at Case Western Gorsuch said 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.’ It was vintage Scalia.” [CNN, 

1/24/17] 

ORIGINALISM 

Proponent 

Neil Gorsuch Is Reportedly A Constitutional Originalist. According to Washington Post Blogs, “Gorsuch is an 

originalist, like Scalia, meaning he attempts to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they 

were written. He is protective of religious rights and found that they could be infringed by requirements of the Affordable 

Care Act requiring employers to provide contraceptive services.” [Washington Post Blogs, 1/25/17] 

CHEVRON DOCTRINE 

Opposes 

Gorsuch Argued Against The Chevron Doctrine. According to Newsweek, “Gorsuch has supported challenging the socalled 

Chevron Doctrine, which the Supreme Court established for courts to generally defer to agencies’ interpretation of 

statutory language. In a concurring opinion he wrote in August 2016, for Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he called the doctrine 

the ‘elephant in the room’ and suggested allowing ‘executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and 

legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution 

of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.’ Supporters argue the doctrine is especially crucial for 

worker protections and scientific advancement.” [Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

 

 

The Chevron Doctrine Allowed Federal Agencies To Interpret Laws That Applied To That Agency. According to 

Newsweek, “Gorsuch has supported challenging the so-called Chevron Doctrine, which the Supreme Court established 

for courts to generally defer to agencies’ interpretation of statutory language. In a concurring opinion he wrote in August 

2016, for Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he called the doctrine the ‘elephant in the room’ and suggested allowing ‘executive 

bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that 

seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face 

the behemoth.’ Supporters argue the doctrine is especially crucial for worker protections and scientific advancement.” 

[Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

Supporters Of The Chevron Doctrine Argued It Protected Workers’ Rights And Scientific Advancement. 

According to Newsweek, “Gorsuch has supported challenging the so-called Chevron Doctrine, which the Supreme Court 

established for courts to generally defer to agencies’ interpretation of statutory language. In a concurring opinion he wrote 

in August 2016, for Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he called the doctrine the ‘elephant in the room’ and suggested allowing 

‘executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a 

way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come 

to face the behemoth.’ Supporters argue the doctrine is especially crucial for worker protections and scientific 

advancement.” [Newsweek, 1/27/17] 

Criticized The Doctrine As A Abdication Of Judicial And Legislative Authority 

Neil Gorsuch Challenged The Chevron Doctrine, Which Directed Courts To Defer To Agencies’ Interpretations Of 

Statutory Language. According to The Denver Post, “In a concurring opinion on a case before the 10th Circuit, Gorsuch 

challenged the so called Chevron doctrine, which directs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations of statutory language. He 

called it the ‘elephant in the room’ and went on to suggest it may be time to reconsider an approach that lets executive 

bureaucracies ‘concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the 

framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.’” [Denver Post, 12/11/16] 

70

Neil Gorsuch: “Chevron Seems No Less Than A Judge-Made Doctrine For The Abdication Of Judicial Duty.” 

According to SNL Electric Utility Report, “Like several U.S. Supreme Court justices before him, a federal appeals judge - who 

also is the son of the first female U.S. EPA head - has argued that the courts should not be so quick to offer so-called 

‘Chevron deference’ to federal agencies’ interpretations of statutory language. ‘Chevron seems no less than a judge-made 

doctrine for the abdication of judicial duty,’ Judge Neil McGill Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit 

wrote in an Aug. 23 concurring opinion. The push for reform is significant, because if courts become more reluctant to defer 

to federal agencies, the U.S. EPA, FERC and other regulators could have a far more difficult time implementing controversial 

new rules.” [SNL Electric Utility Report, 9/5/16] 

Neil Gorsuch Said The “Chevron Doctrine” Allowed “Executive Bureaucracies To Swallow Huge Amounts Of Core 

Judicial And Legislative Power And Concentrate Federal Power.” According to SNL Electric Utility Report, “Gorsuch , 

the son of Reagan-era U.S. EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, has added his voice to the debate. Diving deep into 

the issue, Gorsuch took specific aim at what he described as the executive branch’s use of Chevron deference to overrule 

judicial precedent when interpreting a congressional statute. The case before the 10th Circuit - Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Loretta 

Lynch (No. 14-9585) - was complicated, involving the residency of undocumented immigrants and the question of whether an 

agency can apply its interpretation of the law retrospectively. ‘There’s an elephant in the room with us today,’ wrote Gorsuch 

in his opinion. Chevron allows ‘executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and 

concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ 

design,’ the judge said. ‘Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.’” [SNL Electric Utility Report, 9/5/16] 

Neil Gorsuch Said The “Chevron Doctrine” Allowed Executive Agencies To “Tell Us To Reverse Our Decision 

Like Some Sort Of Super Court Of Appeals.” According to SNL Electric Utility Report, “Asserting that the country’s 

founders considered the separation of powers to be ‘a vital guard against governmental encroachment on the people’s 

liberties,’ Gorsuch said the executive agency involved in the case was allowed to ‘tell us to reverse our decision like some sort 

of super court of appeals.’ ‘If that doesn’t qualify as an unconstitutional revision of a judicial declaration of the law by a 

political branch, I confess I begin to wonder whether we’ve forgotten what might,’ the judge wrote.” [SNL Electric Utility 

Report, 9/5/16] 

Neil Gorsuch Said That When Congress Disagrees With A Judicial Interpretation Of Existing Law, Its Solution 

Should Be To Change The Law Through The Legislative Process. According to SNL Electric Utility Report, “Under the 

process outlined in the Constitution, the solution when the political branch disagrees with a judicial interpretation of existing 

law is for Congress to change the law, Gorsuch maintained. ‘Admittedly, the legislative process can be an arduous one,’ the 

judge continued. ‘But that’s no bug in the constitutional design: it is the very point of the design. The framers sought to ensure 

that the people may rely on judicial precedent about the meaning of existing law until and unless that precedent is overruled or 

the purposefully painful process of bicameralism and presentment can be cleared.’” [SNL Electric Utility Report, 9/5/16] 

Neil Gorsuch Said That If The “Chevron Doctrine” Were Abandoned, “Very Little Would Change- Except Perhaps 

The Most Important Things.” According to SNL Electric Utility Report, “Finally, Gorsuch predicted that if Chevron, ‘this 

goliath of modern administrative law,’ were abandoned, ‘very little would change - except perhaps the most important things.’ 

For instance, he said Congress would continue to pass statutes for executive agencies to enforce, and agencies would continue 

to offer guidance on how they intend to enforce those statutes. ‘The only difference would be that courts would then fulfill 

their duty to exercise their independent judgment about what the law is ... consult agency views and apply the agency’s 

interpretation when it accords with the best reading of a statute,’ Gorsuch wrote.” [SNL Electric Utility Report, 9/5/16] 

Gorsuch’s Opposition To The Chevron Doctrine Differed From Scalia 

Heartland Institute Executive Editor Justin Haskins Noted That Neil Gorsuch Opposed The “Chevron Deference,” 

A Legal Principle Giving Power To Government Agencies When A Law Is Considered Ambiguous, Unlike Justice 

Scalia. According to Las Vegas Sun, “At 49, Gorsuch is five years younger than Pryor and isn’t without controversies of his 

own. A graduate of Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, Gorsuch is an avid believer in restricting the power of regulatory 

agencies, a decision many environmental organizations would find particularly concerning. On that front, Gorsuch may be 

more conservative than Scalia. For instance, Gorsuch opposes what’s known in administrative law as ‘Chevron deference,’ a 

legal principle giving power to government agencies when a law is considered ambiguous. Although Scalia often opposed 

agencies imposing expansive regulations on individuals and businesses, he was a big defender of Chevron, one of the few 

issues on which many limited-government advocates disagreed with Scalia.” [Justin Haskins Op-Ed, Las Vegas Sun, 1/29/17] 

71

Judicial Reform 

PROPONENT OF ACCESSIBILITY AND SIMPLIFICATION 

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice, Rebecca Kourlis, Said Neil Gorsuch Is A Notable Advocate For 

Simplifying The Justice System To Make It More Accessible. According to AP, “He is the son of The son of President 

Ronald Reagan’s Environmental Protection Agency chief, Anne Gorsuch . He worked for two years in Bush’s Justice 

Department before Bush appointed him to his appeals court seat. He was confirmed by a voice vote in 2006. Gorsuch has 

written 175 majority opinions and 65 concurrences or dissents in his decade on the 10th Circuit, according to Rebecca Love 

Kourlis, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice. Gorsuch also is a notable advocate for simplifying the justice system to 

make it more accessible, Kourlis said. Gorsuch is also an avid skier, fly fisherman and horseback rider, Kourlis said. He 

teaches at the University of Colorado’s law school in Boulder.” [AP, 1/29/17] 

72

LABOR 


Gorsuch represtened shareholders, including a billionaire, in a suit against Regal Entertainment Group where a teachers’ 

retirement system that owned stock in the group opposed a payout for fear of the company’s debt increasing 

Gorsuch Ruled Against Employees Who Claimed Their Employers Misinformed Them About Retirement Benefits 

Harassment 

Gorsuch Ruled In Favor Of An Employee Who Was Retaliated Against For Helping A Colleague File A Sexual 

Harassment Complaint. According to the Deseret Morning News, “The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a jury’s 

verdict on behalf of a Salt Lake County employee who was demoted after he helped a colleague pursue a sexual harassment 

complaint against her boss. The county had asked the court to reverse the verdict because the plaintiff ‘didn’t prove various 

things required to make out a ‘prima facie case of retaliation,’’ but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver declined, 

according to an opinion published late last week. […] ‘The jury found for Barrett. The county argued that it disciplined Barrett 

because he was a poor worker. But the evidence showed that Mr. Barrett’s 14 years working for the county were marked only 

by promotions and positive reviews - that is, until he helped draw attention to his colleague’s plight,’ Circuit Judge Neil 

Gorsuch wrote for the three-judge panel, which included Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero and Senior Circuit Judge Terrence 

O’Brien.” [Deseret Morning News, 6/19/14] 

Louisiana Teachers’ Retirement System 

Gorsuch Represented Regal Entertainment Group Shareholders In A Suit Against Regal Entertainment Seeking “A 

$710 Million Extraordinary Dividend Payment” To Shareholders. According to the Associated Press “A Delaware 

Chancery Court judge on Tuesday denied a request for a preliminary injunction to halt a $710 million extraordinary dividend 

payment to Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz and other shareholders of Regal Entertainment Group. […] ‘This company is 

what some analysts call a cash cow,’ defense attorney Neil Gorsuch told Chandler.” [Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

The Teachers’ Retirement System Of Louisiana Brought An Injunction Against The Payout, Claimed The Payment 

Would Increase The Company’s Debt. According to the Associated Press “After hearing more than three hours of 

arguments, Chancellor William Chandler III denied the injunction request from the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, 

which owns about 1,500 shares of Regal stock. […] The teachers' retirement system argued that by using borrowed money for 

the dividend, Regal's board of directors was jeopardizing the financial future of the company, the largest motion picture 

exhibitor in the world. Plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Grant argued that the board of directors did not adequately review or 

understand the dividend proposal before approving it. […] The plaintiffs argued that the extraordinary dividend will increase 

Regal's net debt to more than $2 billion while paying Anschutz, who owns a 57 percent stake in the company, $368 million.” 

[Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

 

The Teachers’ Retirement System Of Louisiana Owned 1,500 Shares Of Regal Stock. According to the Associated 

Press, “After hearing more than three hours of arguments, Chancellor William Chandler III denied the injunction request 

from the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, which owns about 1,500 shares of Regal stock. […] The teachers' 

retirement system argued that by using borrowed money for the dividend, Regal's board of directors was jeopardizing the 

financial future of the company, the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world. Plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Grant argued 

that the board of directors did not adequately review or understand the dividend proposal before approving it. […] The 

plaintiffs argued that the extraordinary dividend will increase Regal's net debt to more than $2 billion while paying 

Anschutz, who owns a 57 percent stake in the company, $368 million.” [Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

73

One Of Gorsuch’s Clients, A Billionaire, Was Slated To Receive $368 Million In the Buyout. “After hearing more than 

three hours of arguments, Chancellor William Chandler III denied the injunction request from the Teachers' Retirement 

System of Louisiana, which owns about 1,500 shares of Regal stock. Chandler said he found no evidence that Anschutz and 

other Regal directors, who together will receive the lion's share of the dividend, breached their fiduciary duties in approving 

the $5-per-share payment. ‘There is absolutely no evidence, not a shred of evidence, that Mr. Anschutz and his affiliates ... 

have received anything to the exclusion of other shareholders,’ Chandler said. ‘... The idea for the dividend did not even 

originate with Anschutz.’ […] The plaintiffs argued that the extraordinary dividend will increase Regal's net debt to more than 

$2 billion while paying Anschutz, who owns a 57 percent stake in the company, $368 million.” [Associated Press, 6/1/04] 

Retirement Benefits 

Gorsuch Ruled Against Employees Who Claimed Their Employers Misinformed Them About Retirement Benefits. 

According to Class Action Reporter, “Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the Tenth Circuit on July 2 scrapped a 

class action alleging that Solvay Chemicals Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when the company 

implemented a new retirement plan, ruling that it didn’t intentionally misinform employees about their benefits. A three-judge 

panel said that Solvay executives didn’t deliberately fail to state how early retirement benefits were calculated under the old 

pension plan when it informed employees of changes in January 2005. Finding that the company’s conduct wasn’t egregious 

and that a district court didn’t misread ERISA lawsuits, the panel denied the employees’ appeal of the lower court’s dismissal 

of the suit.” [Class Action Reporter, 8/12/13] 

 

Gorsuch And The Court Ruled That Solvay’s Failure To Comply With The Law Was Not “Significant” Or 

Intentional. According to Class Action Reporter, “In their appeal, plaintiffs alleged that the lower court improperly used 

character evidence provided by a Solvay employee who testified that the company wouldn’t intentionally break the law, 

court documents said. But the Tenth Circuit said that even if that claim were true, the error wasn’t significant, as 

additional evidence suggested that the company intended to comply with the law. The appeals court also shot down the 

plaintiffs’ allegation that Solvay’s misconduct was egregious because the company didn’t immediately rectify the benefits 

omission, ruling that the district court correctly found that Solvay didn’t discover the mistake until the litigation started.” 

[Class Action Reporter, 8/12/13] 

74

LGBTQ 


Gorsuch granted Utah an extension to file an appeal against the requirement to extend spousal benefits to legally married 

same-sex couples 

Spousal Benefits 

Gorsuch Granted Utah An Extension To File An Appeal Against The Requirement To Extend Spousal Benefits To 

Same-Sex Couples. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “Utah has an extra month to file its appeal of a federal judge’s order 

that the state extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples who wed in Utah during a short window in which such unions were 

legal. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday granted the state’s request for more time after setting an initial 

deadline of Sept. 22. The state now has until Oct. 22 to file its case with the federal appeals court, according to an order filed 

by Judges Neil M. Gorsuch and Robert E. Bacharach. Earlier this month, Utah had asked the court for a time extension, citing 

strained resources and the complexity of the Evans v. Utah lawsuit, which challenges the state to recognize the marriages of 

more than 1,200 gay and lesbian Utahns who married during a 17-day window when same-sex marriages were legal.” [Salt Lake 

Tribune, 8/26/14] 

75

NATIVE AMERICANS 

Section Highlights: 

Gorsuch reprimanded Utah officials for encroaching on tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Ute people. 

Casinos 

RULED AGAINST CHEROKEE CASINO INJUNCTION 

Gorsuch Refused To Grant A Stay Against In Injunction Against A Cherokee Casino. According to the Claremore 

Daily Press, “The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma on Monday learned it has lost its request to stay 

an injunction during an appeal to prevent its casino from closing on Friday. Judges Paul Kelly and Neil Gorsuch for the U.S. 

Court of Appeals 10th Circuit ruled Monday the UKB failed to prove its likelihood of success upon appeal. The court also said 

the tribe couldn't prove it would suffer irreparable harm if the stay isn't granted, or that public interest would be harmed, 

according to court documents.” [Claremore Daily Press, 8/27/13] 

Tribal Lands 

RULED THAT UTAH PROSECUTORS COULD NOT PROSECUTE TRIBAL 

MEMBERS FOR CRIMINES COMMITTED ON TRIBAL LAND 

Gorsuch Ruled That Utah Prosecutors Could Not Prosecute Ute Tribal Members For Crimes Committed On Tribal 

Land. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “In a strongly-worded opinion released Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled that 

Utah prosecutors have no business going after Ute tribal members who commit crimes on Indian land. The court’s decision, 

for the moment, halts such prosecutions. The court sent the case back to a federal judge in Salt Lake City, who has been asked 

by attorneys for the tribe to issue a permanent injunction against the prosecutors. The lawsuit arose after the Ute Indian Tribe 

of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation sued several Utah counties, accusing the counties of prosecuting crimes in areas where 

they have no jurisdiction ccc where only the federal government and the Ute Tribal Court can bring criminal charges. The 10th 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver sided with the reservation, saying that they had already ruled years ago that the tribal land 

was off-limits to state officials. The justices added that the appeal was a ‘reminder’ to state and county officials to respect and 

accept previous rulings ccc and if they don’t, they can expect court sanctions. The boundary dispute examined by the 10th 

Circuit dates back nearly 40 years, to a lawsuit filed by the Ute Tribe against the state of Utah and several local governments. 

In that case, the appeals court ruled the tribe still had jurisdiction over three regions in dispute: the Uncompahgre Reservation, 

the Uintah Valley Reservation and some national forest areas. The state and local governments appealed, but when the U.S. 

Supreme Court refused to hear their case, ‘that ‘should have been the end of the matter,’ wrote Judge Neil Gorsuch. ‘It 

wasn’t,’ Gorsuch added. Instead, state officials began prosecuting tribal members for alleged crimes within the tribal 

boundaries set by the 10th Circuit, setting off more litigation. Eventually, the 10th Circuit ruled one of the three contested 

areas ccc the Uintah Valley Reservation ccc was no longer under tribal jurisdiction. ‘Naturally, the state wanted more,’ 

Gorsuch wrote. ‘It asked this court to extend [that] reasoning to the national forest and Uncompahgre lands’ too. The 10th 

Circuit refused, but the local governments once again began prosecuting tribal members for alleged crimes inside those 

boundaries, Gorsuch wrote.” [Salt Lake Tribune, 6/17/15] 

REPRIMANDED UTAH OFFICIALS FOR ENCROACHING ON TRIBAL 

SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION 

Gorsuch Reprimanded State And Local Officials For Refusing To Abide By Previous Court Rulings On Tribal 

Sovereignty. According to Uintah Basin Standard, “The statement goes on to reprimand state and local officials for their 

refusal to abide by previous rulings from the court. ‘The unavoidable fact is that nearly twenty years ago in Ute V this court 

explained that, between Ute III and its own disposition, ‘all boundary questions at issue’ had been finally resolved,’ wrote 

76

Gorsuch . ‘Even so, the years since seem to have brought nothing but relitigation of those boundaries. Utah and its 

subdivisions bear responsibility for much of this. We have even had to take the extraordinary step of reminding them, parties 

who should (and do) know better, of the possibility of sanctions if they continue to defy settled judicial mandates.’” [Uintah 

Basin Standard, 8/17/16] 

Authored An 18-Page Statement Rebuking The State Of Utah And Myton, UT 

Neil Gorsuch Authored An 18-Page Statement Rebuking The State Of Utah And Myton, UT For Encroaching On 

Longstanding Ute Tribal Sovereignty In The Uintah Basin. According to Uintah Basin Standard, “The Ute Tribe won 

yet another victory in a long-standing sovereignty case on Tuesday, Aug. 9, as the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed its 

earlier rulings regarding tribal jurisdiction of lands in the Uintah Basin. Additionally, Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch issued an 18- 

page statement rebuking both the State of Utah and Myton City for keeping the dispute alive. The case before the court 

involved attempts by Myton City to prosecute tribal members for crimes committed on lands that the court had already 

confirmed were under tribal jurisdiction. In a unanimous decision, all three judges on the case once again confirmed the 

boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation as previously established. The panel also noted that the Ute Tribe has 

essentially won the case seven times in the last 40 years.” [Uintah Basin Standard, 8/17/16] 

 

Gorsuch Blocked Myton, UT’s Attempt To Dismiss A Lawsuit Brought By The Ute Tribe That Claimed 

Local Officials Were Improperly Exercising Criminal Jurisdiction Over Tribal Members On Tribal Lands. 

According to Uintah Basin Standard, “The case before the court last week involved attempts by Myton City to dismiss 

a lawsuit from the tribe that came before the court in 2015. The tribe’s suit stated that local officials were exercising 

criminal jurisdiction over tribal members on tribal lands. Myton City, however, disputes that fact. ‘(Myton) contends 

that not a single bit of land within its boundaries was subject to the 1945 restoration order,’ wrote Gorsuch . ‘The 

Tribe’s factual allegation that Myton includes land that qualifies as Indian country under the terms of Ute V is a good 

deal more than plausible. Indeed, it is undisputed that Myton lies on land that was part of the Tribe’s original 

reservation. The town’s own plan and plat acknowledge that even today ‘approximately 48 percent of the town’s 

geographic space remains tribal trust lands.’’” [Uintah Basin Standard, 8/17/16] 

Neil Gorsuch: “Checkerboard Jurisdiction [Between Sovereign Tribes And U.S. Governments] Is A Fact Of Daily 

Life Throughout The West, And Something Many Localities Have Lived With Successfully.” According to Uintah 

Basin Standard, “Myton City urged the court to consider the consequences that inevitably follow from having lands within its 

borders where it has no jurisdiction over some of its citizens. While the checkerboard jurisdiction is certainly problematic, the 

court dismissed the argument out of hand. ‘(This) is the natural consequence of Congress’s decision to open and then close 

reservation lands to outside elements. Neither would a victory for Myton eliminate the checkerboard that already exists in 

former Utah reservation lands; it would only alter the shape in one relatively small and peculiar way,’ Gorsuch wrote. 

‘Checkerboard jurisdiction is a fact of daily life throughout the West, and something many localities have lived with 

successfully. Myton offers no reason to think it has not done or cannot do the same.’” [Uintah Basin Standard, 8/17/16] 

77

Neil McGill Gorsuch

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?