You are on page 1of 4


Allegations of plagiarism against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch are blatantly false. This is a
scurrilous, baseless eleventh-hour attack based on cherry-picked passages from Judge Gorsuchs
dissertation and a law review article, lifted from the thousands of pages the Judge has written in
academic writing and hundreds of judicial opinions.

Each instance involves Judge Gorsuch citing original primary sources for descriptive accounts of
technical details about medical disorders, the facts of a case, laws, or events that took place in the
world. Judge Gorsuch is not misappropriating anyones ideas, theories, or creative thoughts.

Judge Gorsuchs book has been in the public domain for over 10 years and went through a rigorous
review process at two of the most preeminent Universities in the world Oxford University and
Princeton University Press. Distinguished professors from those universities have stated
that none of the allegations has any substance or justification, that the allegation
is entirely without justification.

Further, the author of a law review article that Buzzfeed alleges Gorsuch lifted from
has herself refuted the charge, writing, I have reviewed both passages and do not see
an issue here, even though the language is similar. Given that these passages both
describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for
Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.

It is sad and offensive that the judges political opponents would stoop to such baseless smears in an
effort to justify an unprecedented partisan filibuster of an eminently qualified U.S. Supreme Court



The accusation that Gorsuch plagiarized from a 1984 Indiana Law Journal article is refuted by the
author of the supposedly plagiarized article, Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, who writes that she does not
see an issue here.

Abigail Lawlis Kuzma Is Assistant Attorney General and Chief Counsel of the new
Victim Services and Outreach Division of Indiana Attorney Generals Office
(OAG). (Indiana State Bar Association, Accessed 4/4/17)


both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar.
These passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical
legal and medical circumstances of the "Baby/Infant Doe" case that occurred in
1982. Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would
have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different

For Example, In One Of The Examples Buzzfeed Cites, Judge Gorsuch Is Merely
Providing The Standard Account Of A Medical Disorder, Downs Syndrome.

In Another, Judge Gorsuch Is Merely Stating The General And Accepted Definition For
Esophageal Atresia With Tracheoesophageal Fistula.


John Finnis, Emeritus Professor Of Law, Oxford University

John Finnis Was A Professor Of Law & Legal Philosophy At Oxford University, And
Since 2010, Finnis Has Been An Emeritus Professor Of Law At Oxford. He Supervised
The Oxford Doctorial Thesis That Underlies Judge Gorsuchs 2006 Book, The Future Of
Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia. (University Of Oxford Faculty Of Law, Accessed 4/4/17)

STATEMENT FROM PROFESSOR FINNIS: I supervised the Oxford doctoral thesis

that underlies Judge Gorsuchs 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and
Euthanasia. Since I prefer not to comment in the media about my former students, I have made
no response to media enquiries about his nomination to the Supreme Court. However, having read
the four enumerated allegations of plagiarism made against Judge Gorsuch by John Bresnahan of
Politico in an email sent at 5.20 pm EDT on 3 April, I wish to say that, in my opinion, none
of the allegations has any substance or justification. The first three concern brief passages
in which he has reasonably preferred to cite the primary sources which an earlier author had cited,
or has adopted an entirely standard definition also adopted by an earlier author. The fourth is a
characteristically skillful and substantial amplification and improvement by the Judge of a one-
sentence description of Ronald Dworkins view of human life made in a public document. In all
four cases, Neil Gorsuchs writing and citing was easily and well within the proper and accepted
standards of scholarly research and writing in the field of study in which he was working.
John Keown, Rose F. Kennedy Professor Of Christian Ethics, Georgetown University

John Keown Is The Rose F. Kennedy Professor Of Christian Ethics At The Kennedy
Institute Of Ethics, Georgetown University, And Was The External Examiner For Judge
Gorsuch's Doctoral Thesis. (The Kennedy Institute Of Ethics, Accessed 4/4/17)

STATEMENT FROM PROFESSOR KEOWN: I hold the Rose F Kennedy Chair of

Christian Ethics in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University and am
a Senior Research Scholar in the Institute. Prior to my appointment to the Kennedy
Chair I taught the law and ethics of medicine in the Faculty of Law in the University
of Cambridge. In 2015 I was awarded the degree of DCL (Doctor of Civil Law) by the University
of Oxford in recognition of my contribution to scholarship in the field of law and bioethics. A
research interest of mine for almost 30 years has been the law and ethics of euthanasia and
physician-assisted suicide, and I am the author, co-author and editor of three books on the
subject. I was the external examiner of Judge Neil Gorsuchs impressive doctoral
thesis on the subject at the University of Oxford. I was pleased to endorse his book
The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (Princeton University Press, 2006),
which grew out of that thesis. My admiration for the book has only grown with

time. Its scholarship across several disciplines, not only law, is outstanding. Its
masterly analysis of arguments; the impressive marshalling of evidence; the fair hearing given to
different viewpoints; the elegant, clear style of writing, and the measured, humane tone of the
book mark it out as a truly classic volume. I have carefully examined the allegation that the
book is guilty of plagiarism. The allegation is entirely without foundation. The book
is meticulous in its citation of primary sources. The allegation that the book is guilty
of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same
primary sources is, frankly, absurd. Indeed, the books reliance on primary rather
than secondary sources is one of its many strengths.
Robert George, McCormick Professor Of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

Robert George Is The McCormick Professor Of Jurisprudence And Director Of The

James Madison Program In American Ideals And Institutions At Princeton University.
He Served As General Editor Of New Forum Books, The Princeton University Press
Series Where Neil Gorsuch's Book Was Published. (Princeton Universitys Program In Law And Public Affairs,
Accessed 4/4/17)

STATEMENT FROM PROFESSOR GEORGE: I was General Editor of New Forum

Books, the Princeton University Press series in which Neil Gorsuchs book was
published. Having reviewed the allegations of plagiarism against Judge Gorsuch, I
can only say that their timing and substance (or, more to the point, lack of
substance) makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a politically
motivated effort to smear him in the hope of derailing his confirmation as an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Gorsuch did not
attempt to steal other peoples intellectual property or pass off ideas or arguments
taken from other writers as his own. In no case did he seek credit for insights or
analysis that had been purloined. In short, not only is there no fire, there isnt even
any smoke. Judge Gorsuchs book was accepted for publication by New Forum Books of
Princeton University Press only after going through a rigorous process of peer review. It offers
original arguments and careful scholarly analysis. It is a significant contribution to the literature.
Im proud to have the book in the New Forum Books series.
Christian Mammen, Partner At Hogan Lovells

Dr. Christian Mammen Is A Partner At San Francisco Law Firm Hogan Lovells And
Studied With Judge Gorsuch At Oxford University. (Hogan Lovells, Accessed 4/4/17)

STATEMENT FROM DR. MAMMEN: The standard practice in a dissertation is to

cite the underlying original source, not a secondary source, that supports a factual
statement. I knew Neil Gorsuch as a fellow Oxford student and can attest that he was
the model of academic rigor and intellectual honesty. In all four cited instances, the most
that can be said is that Gorsuch relied on the same source material as an interim author. This is
entirely appropriate scholarship. The fourth is puzzling. It is bizarre to suggest that it was
somehow less appropriate to discuss Dworkins widely published book instead of a more obscure
report to the House of Lords.
William Kelley, Associate Professor Of Law, Notre Dame Law School

William Kelley Is An Associate Professor Of Law At Notre Dame Law School. (University of
Notre Dame Law School, Accessed 4/4/17)

STATEMENT FROM PROFESSOR KELLEY: It is standard in academic writing to cite primary

sources for factual propositions. And none of the allegations of plagiarism in the Politico piece
amount to the appropriation without attribution of other peoples ideas. Anybody with any
familiarity with Judge Gorsuch and his work knows that he conducts himself with complete

Adam MacLeod, Associate Professor, Faulkner University Jones School of Law

STATEMENT FROM PROFESSOR MACLEOD: The statements in Neil Gorsuchs book agree with
the statements of other reputable scholars because he, like they, is accurately stating facts and terms of art
that are found in primary sources. He is using the terms of art correctly. His statements are accurate. He
has cited the primary sources. And he has identified the scholarship that he consulted in his extensive
footnotes and in his bibliography. These allegations of plagiarism are ludicrous. No scholar
would take them seriously who has read and understood the book.

Richard W. Garnett, Professor, Notre Dame Law School

STATEMENT FROM PROFESSOR GARNETT: The complaints about footnotes in Judge

Gorsuchs book on assisted-suicide are transparently desperate, partisan, and ignorant.
These complaints reflect a striking unfamiliarity with scholarly practice and writing.


All cited instances merely show that Judge Gorsuch relied on the same underlying factual material
as another author. It is a standard and common practice to cite to underlying source materials
rather than secondary sources commenting on those same source materials.

According To Dissertation And Research Success, You Should Cite Primary Sources
Rather Than Rely On And Cite Secondary Sources. (Timothy Delicath and Robin Buckley, Dissertation and
Research Success: Hands-on Coaching for Doctoral Success Before, During, and After Your Dissertation, 2013)

Dissertation And Research Success Says, Secondary Source Citations Should Be

Limited To Books Out Of Print Or Unavailable And Sources Written In A Foreign
Language With No English Translation Published. The Expectation For Dissertations
Is That You Should Cite The Primary Source. For example, you read an article on
observational learning theory written by Deeming and Johnson (2009) that cites Bandura (1962).
It is certainly easier to extract a citation directly from the current article on Banduras germinal
theory and use a secondary citation (as cited in Jones, 2011). However, secondary source citations
should be limited to books out of print or unavailable and sources written in a foreign language
with no English translation published. The expectation for dissertations is that you should cite the
primary source (Bandura, 1962). Therefore, you should locate, read, and cite Banduras original
work. (Timothy Delicath and Robin Buckley, Dissertation and Research Success: Hands-on Coaching for Doctoral Success Before, During,
and After Your Dissertation, 2013)