This Politico article presents a longer overlap between a passage from Neil Gorsuch’s dissertation-turned-book and a 1984 law-review article by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma than I was aware of when I wrote my initial post on this matter yesterday evening. It’s still all highly technical medical jargon and very basic facts, in contrast with ideas, arguments, or creative expressions, and Kuzma herself has rejected the charge that Gorsuch plagiarized her.
This strikes me, at worst, as the sort of inadvertent mistake that many academics make in compiling materials for book-length dissertations. More broadly, I don’t see how this dispute over 20+-year-old citations has any meaningful bearing on the overall case for Gorsuch’s nomination.
(I am also adding the content of this post as an addendum to my original post.)