Judge VanDyke's vulgar dissent undermines judicial dignity and independence for Supreme Court attention
Source: Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern. "We have a winner for most grotesque Supreme Court audition yet.." March 13, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The authors argue that Judge VanDyke wrote a deliberately crude and offensive court opinion to get Trump's attention for a potential Supreme Court nomination. This kind of judicial showboating damages public trust in courts and threatens the independence of the entire judicial system.
Conclusion
Judge Lawrence VanDyke's crude and inflammatory dissent represents a dangerous form of judicial attention-seeking that undermines public trust in the courts and threatens judicial independence
Premises
- VanDyke used deliberately vulgar and inflammatory language in his dissent, beginning with 'This is a case about swinging dicks' and describing transgender rights laws as 'Frankenstein social experiments'
- His dissent prompted an unprecedented rebuke from 29 of his own 9th Circuit colleagues across the ideological spectrum, including conservative judges
- The American Bar Association previously rated VanDyke 'Not Qualified' based on concerns about his temperament, bias, and fairness to LGBTQ+ individuals
- VanDyke's language mirrors Trump's degrading rhetoric about transgender people, suggesting he is auditioning for a Supreme Court nomination
- This behavior represents part of a broader pattern where judges engage in increasingly extreme rhetoric to gain presidential attention
- Such conduct damages public confidence in judicial dignity and threatens the legitimacy of the entire judicial system
Assumptions
- Judicial opinions should maintain professional dignity and decorum
- Public trust in the judiciary is essential for its legitimacy and effectiveness
- Judges should not engage in partisan political theater or attention-seeking behavior
- The 9th Circuit colleagues' rebuke represents genuine concern rather than political positioning
- VanDyke's behavior is primarily motivated by Supreme Court ambitions rather than legal principle