For the second time in recent months, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch engaged in dueling interpretations of federal law—but this time, the freshman justice prevailed over his senior colleague in his first major opinion.

The two justices went toe-to-toe in January in Artis v. District of Columbia, which involved interpretation of the tolling provision in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute. Gorsuch in dissent presented a list of “absurdities” that would follow Ginsburg’s interpretation for the court’s majority. Ginsburg dismissed Gorsuch’s “history lesson” on the common-law principle that he argued supported his interpretation.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]