The First Question From The Florida Supreme Court's Newest Member: "Is Your Position More Like Justice Gorsuch in Bostock or Justice Alito in Dissent?"

Key Takeaways

• DeSantis appoints Adam Tanenbaum, a hard‑line originalist
• Tanenbaum questions counsel on Bostock vs Alito approach
• Counsel aligns with Alito/Kavanaugh, rejecting Gorsuch’s textualism
• Exchange signals Florida’s move away from Bostock precedent
• Highlights growing conservative critique of Supreme Court textualism

Summary

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appointed Judge Adam Tanenbaum to the state Supreme Court, marking his final reshaping of the bench. In Tanenbaum’s first oral argument, he asked the deputy solicitor general whether his statutory‑interpretation approach resembled Justice Gorsuch’s textualism in *Bostock* or Justice Alito’s dissent. The lawyer replied that his view aligns with Alito and Kavanaugh, rejecting Gorsuch’s method. The exchange underscores a clear ideological tilt toward originalist, context‑aware reading of Florida statutes, especially the RICO enterprise definition.

Pulse Analysis

Governor Ron DeSantis’s latest appointment, Judge Adam Tanenbaum, cements a sweeping originalist overhaul of the Florida Supreme Court. Tanenbaum, described by the governor as a “bloodthirsty” originalist, brings a philosophy that prioritizes historical context over plain‑text readings. His background—academic ties to the fixation thesis and constraint principle—signals a judicial mindset likely to scrutinize legislative intent rigorously, especially in high‑stakes areas like criminal law and corporate regulation.

During his inaugural oral argument, Tanenbaum directly invoked the Supreme Court’s *Bostock* decision, asking counsel whether his approach mirrored Justice Gorsuch’s strict textualism or Justice Alito’s dissent‑style contextualism. The deputy solicitor general, Jason Muehlhoff, dismissed Gorsuch’s method, aligning instead with Alito and Kavanaugh’s preference for a natural‑reading of statutes. This back‑and‑forth highlighted a growing rift within conservative legal circles: while some still champion Gorsuch’s literalism, many now view *Bostock* as a cautionary tale of over‑reliance on text without historical grounding.

The broader implication for Florida is profound. Tanenbaum’s willingness to challenge a well‑known Supreme Court precedent suggests future rulings may favor originalist interpretations that could narrow the scope of statutes like Florida’s RICO law. Nationally, the episode reflects a strategic shift among state courts toward resisting federal textualist doctrines, reinforcing DeSantis’s agenda to create a judiciary that aligns with a more restrained, historically anchored view of the law. Stakeholders should monitor upcoming decisions for signs of this methodological pivot, as it may reshape litigation strategies across the Southeast.