On July 31, I met with Justice Neil Gorsuch in his chambers at the Supreme Court for a wide-ranging interview about his new book, “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law.” His co-author, Janie Nitze, a former clerk of his, was present for the interview as well.

I didn’t get to ask every question I wanted to, but our conversation covered a lot of ground, including Gorsuch’s indictment of the regulatory state, his approach to evaluating agency expertise, the problem of mass incarceration and coercive plea bargaining, his jurisprudence holding the United States accountable for its obligations to Native Americans and his definition of originalism and the role of history in understanding the Constitution.

What follows has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

David French: So I want to start by talking about the book. It takes direct aim at the proliferation of rules, regulations and statutes that govern our lives. But I’m really intrigued by the emphasis on the human toll. Critics of the regulatory state often emphasize the economic toll of dense regulations and rules. They’ll tell you if we can smooth out the Federal Register, we could save X billions of dollars, for example. But its defenders will say, “Well, wait a minute. These regulations might create economic inefficiencies, but they actually protect people.” Your book says that’s not necessarily the case. What is the human toll?

Neil Gorsuch: Well, that’s sort of a question about why I wrote the book, David, I think. And the answer is, I’ve been a judge for about 18 years now. And I just have seen so many cases in which ordinary, hard-working, decent Americans, trying to do their best and intending no harm to anyone, just get caught up in a wall of rules or laws that they didn’t know existed.

And having sat through those cases, I wanted to know more about how that came to be, why, and more about them.

So really, the book’s a book of stories about them, of a fisherman in Florida, about monks in Louisiana, about hair braiders in Texas. And they’re cases I’ve seen or some of my colleagues have told me about, and it is not an attack at all on law or regulation. For goodness’ sake, I’m a lawyer and a judge. And some law is absolutely necessary, in order to protect our liberties and our safety.