[UPDATED 10 p.m.]
President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday announced Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative with a polished, Ivy League resumé who has confronted a wide range of education issues as a federal appeals court judge, as his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by the death of Antonin Scalia last year.
“Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support,” Trump said Tuesday evening at an event in the East Room of the White House.
“And his academic credentials, something very important to me, in that education has always been a priority, are as good as I have ever seen,” the president said.
Gorsuch, 49, was born in Denver but moved to the Washington suburbs and attended the elite Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Md., when his mother, Ann Gorsuch Burford was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. She resigned that post in 1982.
Gorsuch graduated from Columbia University in 1988 and from Harvard Law School in 1991. He studied at Oxford University as a Marshall Scholar. He was a law clerk to retired Justice Byron R. White, also a Colorado native, and also served Justice Anthony M. Kennedy during the 1993-94 term of the court. If confirmed, he would become the first law clerk to join the court and serve alongside a justice for whom he had clerked.
Gorsuch was a senior U.S. Department of Justice official when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, by President George W. Bush in 2006.
Gorsuch, appearing with his wife, Louise, on a dais with Trump, said the work of the Supreme Court is “vital to the protection of the people’s liberties under law and to the continuity of our Constitution, the greatest charter of human liberty the world has ever known.”
Gorsuch said that “when we judges don our robes, it doesn’t make us any smarter, but it does serve as a reminder of what’s expected of us: Impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage.”
When it comes to education, Gorsuch has written or joined opinions in cases involving school discipline, education finance, special education, and religion in the public square, among others. Here is a look at some of his key education rulings:
Last year, Gorsuch notably dissented from a 10th Circuit panel ruling that upheld a school resource officer’s arrest and handcuffing of a New Mexico 7th grader for disrupting his class with “fake burps.”
The 2-1 panel majority in A.M. v. Holmes ruled that the officer was immune from liability because it was not clearly established that the student’s classroom disruptions would not be in violation of a New Mexico law that prohibits interference with the “educational process” at any public or private school. The majority also upheld qualified immunity for the officer regarding his use of handcuffs when he took the 13-year-old to a juvenile detention center.
In his dissent, Gorsuch wrote with a sense of dismay that a student’s classroom disruption that would have once resulted in a trip to the principal’s office and detention was now leading to the involvement of the police.
“And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now-compliant 13-year-old to the principal’s office, an arrest would be a better idea,” Gorsuch said. “So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option. ... Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.”
Gorsuch added that the New Mexico courts had “long ago alerted law enforcement that the statutory language on which the officer relied for the arrest in this case does not criminalize noises or diversions that merely ‘disturb the peace or good order’ of individual classes.”
“Respectfully, I would have thought this authority sufficient to alert any reasonable officer in this case that arresting a now compliant class clown for burping was going a step too far,” Gorsuch wrote.
In a 2014 case, Hawker v. Sandy City Corp., Gorsuch joined an unsigned 10th Circuit panel decision holding that a city police officer’s “twist-lock” restraint of the arms of a 9-year-old student suspected of stealing an iPad at school did not constitute excessive force.
The panel agreed with a federal district court that the officer, who was called to the school after the student was caught by the principal with the stolen iPad, used the twist-lock only after the student had grabbed her arm.
“The facts in this case are unfortunate in all respects,” the unsigned 10th Circuit panel opinion said. “It is regrettable that a police officer feels a need to resort to physical force, handcuffs, and arrest in order to gain control of and reason with a 9-year-old child. Equally regrettable is the disrespectful, obdurate, and combative behavior of that 9-year-old child. In any event, given [the student’s] resistance, [the officer’s] actions in this case simply do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”
In yet another case about constraining a student, Gorsuch joined a unanimous panel decision in 2013 that held a school district’s use of a “timeout room” to briefly restrain an elementary school student with developmental disabilities did not “shock the conscience” and thus did not violate the student’s constitutional rights.
The case of Muskrat v. Deer Creek Public Schools involved an Oklahoma family’s claims about the use of the timeout room for their child, who was between ages 5 and 10 when it was used.
In an education-finance case, Gorsuch joined a 2012 panel decision that a group of Kansas parents in the Shawnee Mission district could proceed with a lawsuit seeking to declare a federal constitutional right to spend more on education than the state’s school-finance plan permitted.
The 10th Circuit held in Petrella v. Brownback that the parents group had standing to sue because their alleged injury—unequal treatment by the state—could be redressed by a favorable decision. (The suit was later rejected on the merits, including by a separate 10th Circuit panel that did not include Gorsuch.)
School Employee Speech
In a 2007 case, Casey v. West Las Vegas Independent School District, Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 10th Circuit panel that upheld the dismissal of most First Amendment free speech retaliation claims brought by a district superintendent.
The superintendent had been demoted and later her contract was not renewed by the school board after she raised issues about improper spending in the district’s Head Start program and that the board was violating the state’s open meetings act and other concerns about board actions.
Gorsuch wrote that most of the superintendent’s retaliation claims were barred under the then recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos, a 2006 decision that held when public employees speak pursuant to their jobs, they are not immune from discipline as they might be when speaking out as citizens on a matter of public concern.
“We do not mean to suggest [the superintendent’s] speech regarding the Head Start program did not relate to a matter of public concern,” Gorsuch wrote. “Far from it. As we have held many times, speech reporting the illicit or improper activities of a government entity or its agents is obviously a matter of great public import. We simply hold that [the superintendent’s] speech, such as it was, is more akin to that of a senior executive acting pursuant to official duties than to that of an ordinary citizen speaking on his or her own time.”
“Accordingly,” Gorsuch said, the superintendent could not “meet her burden here and avoid the heavy barrier erected by the Supreme Court in Garcetti.”
The court did allow a claim to proceed based on the superintendent’s reporting to the state attorney general about possible violations by the school board of the open-meetings law. Those statements, Gorsuch wrote, “are another kettle of fish.”
Religion in Public Education
Finally, a dissent written by Gorsuch gives some clues about his views on religious displays on government property, including in public schools. In 2009, the full 10th Circuit declined to reconsider a panel decision that ruled against the public display of the Ten Commandments outside a county courthouse in Oklahoma.
In Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners, Gorsuch wrote a dissent joined by several of his colleagues that suggested one of the Supreme Court’s key tests for evaluating potential government establishment of religion, in the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, had been altered by a pair of 2005 decisions about Ten Commandments displays.
“The Supreme Court’s central message in McCreary [County v. ACLU of Kentucky] and Van Orden [v. Perry] was that public displays focusing on the ideals and history of a locality do not run afoul of the Establishment Clause just because they include the Ten Commandments,” Gorsuch wrote. “In inclusive displays on places like courthouse lawns, the Ten Commandments can convey a secular moral message about the primacy and authority of law, as well as the history and moral ideals of our society and legal tradition.”
And in taking note of a 1980 per curiam Supreme Court opinion, in Stone v. Graham, which struck down a Kentucky statute that required the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, Gorsuch said the court in that opinion " took pains to emphasize that [the Ten Commandments] may be ‘integrated into . . . the school curriculum . . . in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.’”
Photos: Top, Neil M. Gorsuch kisses his wife, Louise, as President Donald J. Trump announces that the federal appeals court judge is his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. - Carolyn Kaster/AP
Middle: Judge Neil M. Gorsuch speaks in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 31, after President Donald J. Trump announced Gorsuch as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. - Carolyn Kaster/AP
A version of this news article first appeared in The School Law Blog.