· policy
Wikipedia (opens in new tab)

Neil Gorsuch on Roe v. Wade

Evasive on Roe precedent (moderate)

TL;DR

Neil Gorsuch consistently avoided explicitly stating whether he supported or opposed the constitutional right established by Roe v. Wade during his confirmation hearings.

Key Points

  • He stated that Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court precedent and must be treated as such, but declined to give his personal opinion on the ruling.

  • In response to questioning in 2017, he stressed that disclosing personal views on precedents would compromise judicial fairness and independence by signaling to future litigants.

  • He dissented from a denial of rehearing in a case involving a challenge to Utah funding for Planned Parenthood, siding with the governor against the organization.

Summary

During his 2017 Senate confirmation hearing, Neil Gorsuch repeatedly declined to state whether he believed the Roe v. Wade decision was correctly decided. He characterized Roe as a precedent of the Supreme Court that had been reaffirmed, noting that a good judge must consider all factors of precedent, but refused to label it "super precedent." Following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe in 2022, several senators who had voted to confirm Gorsuch stated they felt misled by his prior insistence on the importance of supporting longstanding precedents.

Frequently Asked Questions

During his confirmation hearings, Neil Gorsuch avoided stating whether he agreed with the outcome of Roe v. Wade. He confirmed that it was precedent but refused to say if he believed it was correctly decided, arguing that a judge cannot express personal views on specific precedents.

Some senators who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch later claimed they felt misled after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. They pointed to his emphasis on upholding longstanding precedents, which they interpreted as a commitment to maintaining the ruling, contrary to the final decision.

Neil Gorsuch consistently emphasized the importance of precedent for the rule of law, stating that a good judge must consider all factors when analyzing settled precedent. However, he argued that expressing a personal preference for or against a precedent, like Roe, would improperly tip his hand to future litigants.