· concept
Wikipedia (opens in new tab)

Neil Gorsuch on Judicial Philosophy

Originalist Textualist (strong)

TL;DR

Neil Gorsuch champions originalism and textualism, maintaining judges must apply law as written, not by personal policy preferences.

Key Points

  • He is a textualist who narrowly interprets statutes, focusing on the law as written and originally understood.

  • He argued that the doctrine of Chevron deference, which defers to agency statutory interpretations, allows executive bureaucracies to improperly seize judicial power.

  • He has written on the importance of the separation of powers, viewing it as a critical contribution to human liberty that protects the rule of law.

Summary

Neil Gorsuch firmly subscribes to the judicial philosophies of originalism and textualism, viewing the judge's role as strictly applying the law's terms as faithfully as possible. He contends that interpretations must focus backward, relying on the text, structure, and history to determine what a reasonable reader at the time of the law's writing would have understood, explicitly rejecting rulings based on personal moral convictions or perceived policy consequences. This approach was directly influenced by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose views on interpreting constitutional texts as originally understood were a breath of fresh air to Gorsuch when he was a law student.

During his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch frequently emphasized this commitment to neutrality, refusing to state agreement or disagreement with iconic precedents, instead reiterating that they were entitled to respect because they were precedents of the Court. This stance suggests a view that for courts to operate effectively, judicial independence is paramount, requiring political actors to respect the difference between judging and politics, and that the government of the United States must remain one of laws, not of men. He has also expressed concern that the civic understanding of the judge's proper role might be eroding.

Frequently Asked Questions

Neil Gorsuch's primary judicial philosophy centers on originalism and textualism. He maintains that judges must interpret the Constitution and statutes based on their original public meaning at the time of enactment. This methodology dictates that his role is to apply the law as written, not to craft decisions based on personal policy preferences.

Yes, Neil Gorsuch strongly insisted on judicial neutrality during his Senate confirmation hearings in 2017. He emphasized that the judge's job involves only applying the legal materials like statutes and precedents without inserting personal views into rulings. This focus on objective application is intended to secure the courts' insulation from inappropriate political pressure.

Although Gorsuch champions a strict reading of texts, he acknowledges the weight of precedent as a Justice. He stated during his confirmation that past Supreme Court decisions are entitled to respect because they are precedents of the Court. However, his textualist/originalist approach suggests he may be more willing than others to challenge precedent if he believes it deviates from the law's original meaning.