Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has a mixed record when it comes to rulings on public lands and environmental issues, says Fortune, based on an Associated Press review of Gorsuch’s case history.
“I think that his record, although the number of cases is quite limited, shows that at times it has led to decisions that one might consider environmentally favorable, and about an equal number of times it has led to decisions some might think are environmentally unfavorable,” said Donald Kochan, associate dean and professor at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law. “For those who think that he will lean toward one outcome or another, I think they’ll be surprised on how the more neutral application of his philosophy will often lead to confounding results.”
Denise Grab, a lawyer with New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, agreed that Gorsuch’s record was a “mixed bag” when it comes to public lands and environmental rulings during his time with the Denver-based 10th circuit. But she added that he has in the past been “unusually eager to throw roadblocks in the way of public interest groups who want their day in court.”
For example, Gorsuch broke ranks with his fellow 10th-circuit judges on a panel hearing when the New Mexico Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance opposed a plan to limit all-terrain-vehicle access to the Santa Fe National Forest. Unlike the other judges, Gorsuch didn’t think that environmental groups should have a chance to participate in the hearing, writing, “An intervenor becomes a full-fledged party, able to conduct discovery, file motions, and add new issues and complexity and delay to the litigation.”
Yet, in another case dealing with motorcycle access to a national forest in Colorado, Gorsuch dismissed the motorcycle plaintiffs on procedural grounds and found in favor of conservationists.