Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch Drops Hot New Single: ‘Actually, Government CAN Kill You’
Washington D.C. – In a move that has absolutely shocked no one who has ever looked at a calendar, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has decided to remind the American peasantry that, actually, the government is totally allowed to kill you, as long as it does a little paperwork first. The bombshell opinion, dropped on a sleepy Friday afternoon like a spicy take from a cryptid uncle at Thanksgiving, has the legal world in a tizzy and the rest of us just trying to remember if we paid our internet bill.
In the case *United States v. Vaello-Madero*, Gorsuch, joined by the usual suspects (looking at you, Clarence Thomas), wrote a concurring opinion that basically argues that the federal government isn’t bound by the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees when it comes to, well, anything, really. The case specifically dealt with whether Puerto Ricans are entitled to the same federal benefits as mainland residents. Spoiler alert: they aren’t, according to the Supremes. But Gorsuch, not content to just say “no,” decided to crack open the Constitution, point at the “Insular Cases” (yep, those super racist 1900s rulings that called Puerto Ricans an “alien race”), and say, “Actually, these are still good law, fam.”
Let’s break this down for the normies in the back. The Insular Cases are a collection of early 20th century decisions that basically said, “Hey, if the U.S. conquers some random islands, the Constitution doesn’t fully apply there. It’s a territory, not a state. Deal with it.” It’s colonialist hogwash that even the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has said is problematic. But Neil? He’s all in. He’s like a historian who only reads the footnotes from the worst chapters.
Now, the really spicy part that has Reddit lawyers and Twitter constitutional scholars (yes, they exist, and they’re insufferable) losing their collective minds: Gorsuch’s logic doesn’t just apply to Puerto Rico. He’s basically arguing that the government has a “plenary power” over territories, which is just a fancy way of saying “absolute power.” And if the government has absolute power over territories, why wouldn't it have the same power over, say, a military base? Or a federal park? Or, you know, a person standing on federal land during a protest?
The internet, predictably, has reacted with the emotional maturity of a middle schooler discovering that their favorite YouTuber is actually a cryptofascist. “Neil Gorsuch just said the government can legally kill you as long as you’re not in a state,” one user on r/LawSchool posted, their anxiety probably reaching levels that require medication. “I’m going to print this opinion out and use it as toilet paper,” said another, presumably a 1L who just bombed their con law final.
Let’s be real for a second. The core of Gorsuch’s argument is that the Constitution isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” document. Which, on its face, sounds like a reasonable, “states’ rights” kind of take. But when you dig into the actual history he’s citing, it’s a dumpster fire of imperialism and racism. He’s essentially saying, “The government didn’t have to follow the Bill of Rights in Puerto Rico in 1901, and they don’t have to now.” It’s like saying, “Well, my grandpa was a racist, so I guess I can be too.” It’s a terrible precedent, and it’s coming from a guy who is supposed to be the final word on what the law is.
The AITA (Am I The Asshole) vibes here are off the charts. Is Neil Gorsuch the asshole for citing 120-year-old racist case law to deny health insurance to elderly Puerto Ricans? Let’s check the subreddit: “NTA. The Constitution is a living document, and he’s just interpreting it as written. The Insular Cases are bad law, but they are the law.” (Downvoted to oblivion). “YTA. You’re literally using the logic of ‘separate but equal’ to create a second-class citizenry. You’re the asshole, Neil. Put down the quill and go touch grass.”
The real kicker? This isn’t even the most controversial thing Gorsuch has done this term. Remember when he basically said corporations can just ignore environmental laws if they want? Or when he joined the majority to gut affirmative action? This guy is on a heater, and not the good kind where you hit a walk-off homer. This is the kind of heater where you accidentally pour gasoline on the grill and singe off your eyebrows.
So what’s the takeaway for the average American who just wants to buy eggs and not think about 19th-century legal doctrines? It’s this: The Supreme Court is basically a group of nine people who get to decide what the rules are, and right now, the majority is leaning hard into “the government can do whatever it wants, as long as it says ‘please’ first.” Neil Gorsuch is just the loudest, most smug voice in the room, reminding us that the Constitution is only as good as the people interpreting it. And right now, those people think “separate but equal” is still a vibe.
Final Thoughts
Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence reveals a judge less interested in partisan outcomes than in the quiet, tectonic work of reshaping administrative law—a project that may ultimately constrain federal power more profoundly than any single culture-war ruling. His eloquent, almost literary opinions often mask a radical modesty in his view of the judiciary’s role, yet that very restraint can produce startlingly disruptive results when applied to decades of regulatory precedent. For all the noise around his appointment, Gorsuch’s true legacy may be in how methodically he has chipped away at the architecture of the modern administrative state, leaving a body of law that future justices will have to reckon with long after the headlines fade.