Neil Gorsuch in Supreme Court 2020s

On Civil Rights: Ruled against claimants in employment discrimination cases

Civil rights groups were worried about Gorsuch when he was nominated to the high court mainly because of his rulings in employment discrimination cases that often went against claimants, and an article he wrote in 2005 in the conservative National Review. In that article, he took a narrow view of civil rights impact litigation, writing that "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box" as the chief means for their social agenda.

On Environment: Congress should write EPA rules, not Executive Branch

Justice Kagan led the majority opinion in 2019's Gundy, rejecting arguments that Congress had handed too much power to the executive branch. The case narrowly avoided a revival of the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine but provided justices a platform for revisiting the administrative law issue.

But environmental lawyers also saw Gorsuch's opinion in last year's landmark civil rights case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., as a sign that Gorsuch could take broad reading of the Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gases (Climatewire, June 18, 2020).

On Energy & Oil: Allow refineries Renewable Fuel Program extensions

In an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a majority of the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that a refiner that has allowed its prior exemption to lapse can apply for & receive an "extension" of its exemption. "It is entirely natural--and consistent with ordinary usage--to seek an 'extension' of time even after some lapse," Gorsuch wrote. "Think of the forgetful student who asks for an 'extension' of a term paper after the deadline has passed, the tenant who does the same after overstaying his lease, or parties who negotiate an extension of a contract after its expiration."

On Government Reform: AZ mail-in restrictions don't violate Voting Rights Act

Dissenters argued that the Court's narrow reading weakened the law and disregarded its intent to address disparities in how election laws affect different racial groups. The rule discarding "out of precinct votes" impacted black and Hispanic voters, with Arizona leading the country in discarding such votes. Restrictions on vote collection makes voting more difficult for Native Americans.

Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court. John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred.

On Education: Schools can't regulate student off-campus speech like parent

Majority opinion: The Court ruled 8-1 that though there might be circumstances in which off-campus speech might fall under the purview of the school, this did not qualify. It did not involve bullying or threatening behavior, nor did it cause any disruptions at the school. Written by Breyer; joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett.

Concurring opinion: Alito, joined by Gorsuch, focused on when a school is acting in loco parentis, agreeing that was not the case here.

Dissenting opinion: Thomas argued that, historically, a school can regulate off-campus speech if it has a tendency to harm the school, faculty, students, or programs.

On Health Care: Individual mandate is unconstitutional even with $0 tax

In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."

SCOTUS outcome:Opinion authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Alito and Gorsuch dissented, [declaring the] individual mandate "clearly unconstitutional"

On Immigration: Allow access to relief in deportation proceedings

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, adopting a rigid interpretation of a federal statute that requires the government to serve a "notice to appear" in order to trigger the "stop-time" rule. That rule can foreclose access to immigration relief by preventing noncitizens from accruing the time required for eligibility.

The voting line-up was unusual. Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by the court's three liberals--Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--as well as two other conservatives--Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.