Neil Gorsuch ignores federal court impact on economic matters

In a recent legal debate, Ashish Patel, an Indian immigrant in Texas, faced significant hurdles trying to earn a living through eyebrow threading. Texas classified the practice as "cosmetology," which required aspirants to obtain costly and time-consuming licenses. In response, Patel, along with other eyebrow threaders, pursued legal action against this licensing scheme, ultimately achieving a favorable ruling from the Texas Supreme Court. Justice Don Willett remarked that the case benefited from being judged under Texas law rather than under the federal Constitution, which tends to favor judicial deference in economic issues. This situation highlights a broader concern about excessive regulation and laws that may be deemed arbitrary, illustrating a lack of federal intervention in similar cases. Despite the urgency of this legal issue, Justice Neil Gorsuch's book on the matter, titled Over Ruled, disappointingly sidesteps significant discussions surrounding judicial restraint and federal court doctrines that contribute to the prevalence of cumbersome regulations. Gorsuch fails to engage with key SCOTUS precedents and offers no clarity on his stance regarding the federal courts’ roles, leaving readers to speculate on his views. The case of Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation raises important questions about the balance of power between state and federal laws and the interpretation of individual rights concerning economic liberties.