Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020).
Gorsuch is indeed a dyed-in-the-wool textualist in matters of statutory interpretation. The words in the statute are all Congress votes on and all the President signs into law, so they're all the courts can use. Doesn't matter what anyone did or did not "intend." Doesn't matter what's in any congressional committee report on the legislation. Doesn't matter what some grandstanding dipshit said about the statute during debate in the Senate. All that matters is what the statute actually does, and that's found within the four corners of the text.
Bostock suggests that Gorsuch will apply textualism is a principled way, going where the analysis leads rather than manipulating the analysis to generate a wingnut outcome. The approach will generate "conservative" outcomes much of the time, but not this time.
Down the road, the most significant aspect of Bostock may be that Gorsuch got Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan to sign on to his brand of statutory analysis.