WASHINGTON — Justice Neil Gorsuch dived into the public side of his new job Monday, piping up early and often as he took his seat on the Supreme Court bench for the first time to hear arguments.
The new justice waited just 11 minutes before asking questions in the first of three cases the court heard Monday, its first session since President Trump’s pick was sworn in one week earlier.
The 49-year-old Gorsuch echoed his own confirmation hearing testimony with questions focused on the text of federal laws and rules at issue before the court.
He employed a bit of humor, expressed a modicum of humility, showed a hint of irritation, and even channeled Justice Antonin Scalia, the man he replaced, with a touch of sarcasm.
‘‘Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?’’ Gorsuch asked during the first argument, a technical case about which court federal employees go to with discrimination claims.
That question sounded a lot like the answer Gorsuch gave last month, when he was pressed to defend an opinion he wrote against a fired trucker. ‘‘Senator, all I can tell you is my job is to apply the law you write,’’ he said then.
Gorsuch sat straight in his high-backed chair, to the far left of Chief Justice John Roberts.
The justices had removed one chair from the bench after Scalia died more than 14 months ago. Monday’s session was the first since then with the ninth chair restored, and nine justices present.
Roberts issued the standard welcome for new justices, wishing Gorsuch ‘‘a long and happy career in our common calling.’’ Gorsuch thanked his new colleagues for their ‘‘warm welcome.’’
Gorsuch had an exchange with lawyer Christopher Landau, who is representing a former federal Census Bureau worker, Anthony Perry.
When Landau said his client wasn’t asking the court to break new ground in its decision, Gorsuch launched a zinger reminiscent of Scalia.
‘‘No, just to continue to make it up,’’ he said.
In a separate matter Monday, the court rejected an appeal from detained immigrant mothers and their children who claim they will be persecuted if they are returned to their Latin American homelands.
The justices left in place a lower court ruling that said the families did not have a right to contest their deportation in federal court.
