If there's one guarantee, it's that Gorsuch would despise the Ninth Circuit's opinion. This case illustrates rather well the sometimes narrow difference between an "originalist" and a "textualist".
Gorsuch is a textualist, and unlike an originalist, generally does not consider things outside the text of the law itself, such as legislative history or other statements in the record. It's the text itself that determines how you interpret something.
Here, the 9th Circuit expressly said that it was going to take account of statements outside the text of the EO itself made by various people - some not even part of the Administration (like Giuliani), regarding "the intent" of the order. In other words, the 9th circuit held that even though it isn't a "Muslim ban" on its face, its unconstitutional because it was intended to ban Muslims. Which leads to the rather absurd conclusion that the exact same order promulgated by a subsequent President would not be unconstitutional as long as he didn't make such statements.
Anyway, that's the kind of thing that Gorsuch just doesn't do. He's shot down that kind of thing a million times in the past, in a variety of contexts.
