Ms. Varsava did not analyze Justice Gorsuch’s writing on the Supreme Court. But she has read his opinions, and she had some tentative explanations for the recent critiques.

“His Supreme Court opinions feel a bit more heavy-handed,” she said. “He’s a little contrived, a little too much.”

She gave an example, citing the opening line from Justice Gorsuch’s first majority opinion: “Disruptive dinnertime calls, downright deceit and more besides drew Congress’s eye to the debt collection industry.”

Ms. Varsava said the alliteration was showy and jarring. “It just seemed like not something a justice should be spending so much time on,” she said. “Even though alliteration is pleasing, it should be a bit more subtle than that.”

More recently, she said, Justice Gorsuch seemed to hit his stride in a majority opinion in a water dispute that started with this observation: “Will Rogers reportedly called the Rio Grande ‘the only river I ever saw that needed irrigation.’”

“That’s quite nice,” Ms. Varsava said of the opinion. “It opens nicely, and it’s a very nice read.”

Ross Guberman, an authority on legal writing and the author of “Point Taken: How to Write Like the World’s Best Judges,” said he, too, was puzzled by the vehemence of the recent critiques. Justice Gorsuch has real gifts as a writer, he said, and assessments of his writing have had a partisan tinge.

“Why is Gorsuch so divisive even when it comes to something as nerdy as writing style?” Mr. Guberman asked. “One explanation could be that his writing seems highly personal — not personal in the sense of conversational but personal in the sense that he’s trying to call attention to himself.”