Talk:Neil Gorsuch

Updating photo

All of the other justice's photos on their pages match those found on the current justices section of the SCOTUS website. Should we do that here too to match the other justices, or is there a copyright issue with the photo on the website or something? Pacamah (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

1st Amendment rulings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice

I noted the page has very little detail on his writings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice despite that being an important part of his jurisprudence. I think a section should be added. Some more detail on this. Gorsuch joined a 2 page concurrence from Thomas criticising Locke in his concurrence and called the majority's endorsement of Locke concerning, although joined the majority because it construed Locke narrowly. Gorsuch also wrote his own concurrence also joined by Justice Thomas, in Trinity Lutheran rejecting the reasoning of footnote 3. Gorsuch criticised the distinction between religious status and religious use. He argued the distinction isn't clear and the same set of facts can be described as both status and use. Gorsuch reiterated these criticism more fully in a concurring opinion in Espinoza. He said it is a violation of free exercise either way.

In the COVID-19 emergency litigation, Gorsuch was an active writer for the Court. He wrote a number of concurring opinions. Importantly, he wrote a concurrence in Roman Catholic Brooklyn Diocese criticising Roberts concurrence in South Bay I for what he termed as being too deferential to government and inviting lower Courts to ignore religious liberty. He also compared various establishments including bike shops, liquor shops, acupuncturists etc. to churches for the purposes of neutrality analysis. He reiterated these points in South Bay II.

On these points and several others, I think this page could be improved.

Nosteponsnek76 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Co-author's name incorrectly rendered

In the 2005 entry for "other publications", change "Matey, Matey" to "Matey, Paul" -- 2600:4040:2957:D900:BDF1:B686:BC52:42E0 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Should the 303 Creative LLC be mentioned under the 'LGBT Rights' header?

Given the background of the case was directly about whether or not the company on questions could refuse service to a gay couple it seems like it should get some mention underneath that header if it's not going to be mentioned in the 1st ammendment header. I think it'd belong more in the LGBT rights header anyways given it's direct relation to that subject. 2600:1702:55B0:FC00:F87F:D23D:83EE:8CCA (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Add a category relevant to his career

Category:21st-century Roman Catholics MaribelCasey00199 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Mention of alleged dissertation plagiarism under Supreme Court Nomination heading

Currently under Gorsuch's Supreme Court Nomination subheading there is mention of alleged plagiarism regarding his dissertation. Was this really a notable enough controversy to warrant mention? Other Justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson don't have similar fusses included such as when she was being suggested by Republican senators as being lenient on child-pornography offenders. It comes off to me that the text presented is lukewarm on the idea that Gorsuch plagiarized at all, saying that they either "differed in their assessment of what Gorsuch did, ranging from calling it a clear impropriety to mere sloppiness." or that it was "entirely without foundation". It appears to me that the biggest controversies surrounding his nomination were more so the fact that Merrick Garland's nomination was blocked rather than this dissertation criticism. Perhaps this information would be best moved to the dissertations Wikipedia article instead? LosPajaros (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Question deletion of Justice Ginsburg from recent edit

One of the repeated points of the article's section on "American Indian law & relations" is that in several Supreme Court decisions on this topic, Justice Gorsuch has favored the rights of Native Americans, on this topic siding (against expectations) with his liberal colleagues and against most or all of his fellow conservative Justices. For example, this section says about four cases that: he "joined the four liberal justices (in two plurality opinions)," he "again joined the four more liberal justices," he "again joined the liberal justices," and he, "Barrett, and the three liberal justices ruled in favor of the Native American Tribes of Texas."

An edit this morning deleted the fact that Justice Ginsburg joined Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in one of those cases. The edit is described as "Rem superfluous mention of J Ginsburg." I think the mention of her is entirely relevant and noteworthy, not at all superfluous. My inclination is to revert that edit since the fact that he and RBG were in agreement 1) is unusual, and contrary to their stereotypes, and 2) significantly supports a point made throughout this section of the article. But I welcome views of others - agree or disagree? Thanks.

Full disclosure of my interest and one reason I am writing here to seek others' views, rather than just revert the edit - I added the forerunner of this section, including the line about Justice Ginsburg, in an edit of March 22, 2019, 01:29. Sullidav (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)