Turning to judicial philosophy, note two strands of the late Justice Scalia's philosophy. First, Justice Scalia insisted, and he persuaded many others, that the text of any statute stands alone, and that its so-called legislative history should not affect a court's interpretation of the statute's words. This may be his greatest judicial legacy. Second, while Justice Scalia was not the first to demand a strict reading of the words of the Constitution, his support for the "originalist" interpretation was hugely influential. He believed in leaving legislating to the legislators. Where does Judge Garland stand? It appears that in contrast to Justice Scalia, he favors the "living document" approach. This allows judges flexibility in choosing how to interpret the Constitution. If so, this judicial approach will determine the cast of his opinions, and doubtless the outcomes of some cases, if Judge Garland becomes a justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. See Juan Williams, writing in the  Wall Street Journal for April 2-3, 2016,  "The Never Ending Battle Over How to Read the Constitution". (Paywall)

Back to Judge Garland as a writer. My fellow legal writing professional Ross Guberman has also looked at Judge Garland's opinion in  ACLU v. CIA. Ross Guberman's observations do not constitute a critique of the opinion. But it appears to both of us that nothing sets Judge Garland apart as a writer. That is good news. He is simply an accomplished legal writer. His opinion in  ACLU v. CIA reveals no quirks. It is clear. It is also persuasive, as indicated by the fact that it was written for a unanimous court. It is in his judicial philosophy that Judge Garland's difference lies.