Justice Neil Gorsuch has been noted for his steadfast support of American Indian rights, a stance that has puzzled both conservative colleagues and observers of the Supreme Court’s generally conservative dynamics. Legal scholar Ilya Somin highlighted that until 2023, Justice Gorsuch had never voted against Native American interests in Supreme Court cases. This pattern is particularly perplexing given Gorsuch’s position as a conservative judge on an overall conservative bench. Some commentators, including Mark Joseph Stern, have remarked on the unique advocacy Gorsuch provides for Native Americans within the context of his broader judicial philosophy (Reason).
Several explanations have been postulated regarding Gorsuch’s approach. It has been suggested that his Western roots and experiences in the Tenth Circuit, which frequently deals with cases involving American Indian rights, may contribute to his perspective. Others argue that his fidelity to the Constitution, viewing tribal sovereignty as enshrined within its framework, influences his rulings. These viewpoints are explored in depth by commentators who have analyzed his judicial leanings in recent cases (Slate).
Gorsuch has repeatedly emphasized the theme of unfulfilled promises to Native American tribes in landmark cases. In McGirt v. Oklahoma, he insisted on the recognition of the Creek Nation’s reservation, underlining that commitments made in historical treaties must be honored. Similarly, in his dissent in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, he argued for the enforcement of water rights promised to the Navajo by treaty.
His commitment to upholding the promises of the federal government extends to significant rulings such as Haaland v. Brackeen, where he upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, affirming tribal sovereignty over internal matters, particularly concerning the welfare of American Indian children.
Despite his record, Gorsuch does not automatically side with every case in favor of American Indian interests, as evidenced by his stance in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe. Here, Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, opted not to immediately support the claims of electoral injustice under the Voting Rights Act, highlighting that his judicial decisions are nuanced and not beholden to any singular demographic interest (SCOTUSblog).
Justice Gorsuch’s approach underscores his adherence to a principle of justice based on historical commitments and legal frameworks, a philosophy that seeks to respect the treaty obligations made by the United States to American Indian tribes. This perspective illuminates his broader judicial narrative, one where promises form the core of his interpretation of justice in matters concerning Native American rights.