Here’s a bit passed on to us from a colleague who reads USA Today. Leading off “Justice Gorsuch confirms conservatives’ hopes, liberals’ fears in first year on Supreme Court,” is this snippet, which points out a Just Compensation case in which we represented the (denied) petitioner:

WASHINGTON – Neil Gorsuch had been a member of the Supreme Court for exactly 11 weeks when he made clear in a single day what type of justice he would be.

The court struck down an Arkansas law that treated same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples on their children’s birth certificates. Gorsuch dissented. 

The court refused to consider a challenge to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ system for evaluating disability claims. Gorsuch dissented.

The court declined to hear a challenge to a California law limiting who can carry a concealed gun in public. Gorsuch dissented.

And the court turned aside a challenge to the meager sum Mississippi paid when it converted a former landowner’s property into a park. Gorsuch said the justices should hear a similar case “at its next opportunity.”

Thus it was that on the last day of its 2016-17 term — as the court addressed gay rights, government power, gun ownership and government takings — Neil McGill Gorsuch announced to the legal world that he would not go along to get along.

“He came to the court more ready to jump into the deep end than a lot of recent nominees,” says Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Here’s why

we thought the denial of cert in that case (and others) wasn’t necessarily a bad sign.