In Bostock, Justice Gorsuch updated the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity. But in 2018 in Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. U.S., the Justice decried this approach to judging:

“Written laws are meant to be understood and lived by. If a fog of uncertainty surrounded them, if their meaning could shift with the latest judicial whim, the point of reducing them to writing would be lost. That is why it’s a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction’ that words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.’”

And don’t forget New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira in 2019 where he quoted himself: “‘[I]t’s a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction’ that words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking their ordinary . . . meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.’” He added: “After all, if judges could freely invest old statutory terms with new meanings, we would risk amending legislation outside the ‘single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure’ the Constitution commands.”