Have any of the judges on the supreme court made specific refence about the necCesity of following NATURAL LAW

1. What the sources actually cover about justices and legal philosophy

The search results are focused on case dockets, opinion coverage, biographies and event listings: SCOTUSblog reports on arguments and case additions ^[4], the Supreme Court’s own site lists justices and routine announcements ^{[1] [2]}, and Fix the Court compiles appearances and speeches ^[3]. Those materials document what the Court is deciding and where justices speak, but the snippets provided do not quote any justice asserting that American courts must follow “natural law” ^{[4] [1] [3] [2]}.

2. What “natural law” would mean in this context — and what’s missing

“Natural law” is a longstanding philosophical idea—law grounded in moral or metaphysical principles rather than positive statute or precedent—but none of the supplied previews, opinion summaries or event lists in the search results engage that concept directly. The Columbia Law faculty summaries discuss judicial reasoning and constitutional interpretation but the excerpts do not report any justice invoking natural law as a controlling doctrine ^[6]. Therefore, available sources do not mention a justice declaring the necessity of following natural law ^[6].

3. Where such statements would usually appear — and what these sources do show

If a justice made a claim that courts must follow natural law, it would typically appear in an opinion, a public speech, or a confirmation hearing transcript. The sources provided include opinion coverage, term previews and event schedules — the ordinary venues where justices speak publicly — yet the supplied snippets reflect case law discussion (denaturalization, administrative deference, term previews) without capturing any explicit natural-law declaration ^{[7] [8] [9]}. This absence in those primary venues is notable given how closely the outlets track judicial statements ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Competing viewpoints and the evidentiary standard

Some legal scholars and journalists argue that recent Court activity reflects particular interpretive approaches—textualism, originalism, or deference to certain institutional prerogatives—rather than an explicit turn to natural law; the Columbia Law and Reuters coverage focus on doctrinal and institutional reasoning without invoking natural law ^{[6] [5]}. Because the provided reporting does not contain direct quotes or citations where justices endorse natural law, one cannot credibly assert they have done so based on these sources alone. Available sources do not mention any justice advocating natural-law as a binding judicial rule ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Limits of this review — what I did and did not find

This analysis is limited to the search results you supplied. Those sources include court websites, major legal blogs and news outlets that routinely report on judicial speeches and opinions; none of the supplied excerpts document a justice insisting on adherence to natural law ^{[4] [1] [2] [5]}. If you are aware of a specific justice, case, opinion, or speech you want checked, provide that text or a link; the current materials do not contain it.

6. How to verify further — concrete next steps

To confirm whether any justice has invoked natural law in a binding way, check: (a) full Supreme Court opinions and concurrences on the Court’s website or SCOTUSblog for the keyword “natural law” ^{[1] [4]}; (b) full transcripts/videos of speeches and lectures compiled by Fix the Court or the Court’s event pages ^{[3] [1]}; and (c) major legal analyses from Columbia Law or Reuters for contextual discussion ^{[6] [5]}. The sources you supplied point to these outlets as the right places to search but do not themselves contain the sought-after statement ^{[4] [1]}.

Limitations: this answer strictly reflects only the provided reporting and site excerpts; it does not claim the broader historical record beyond these sources.