Lawrence VanDyke doesn’t really do "quiet." If you’re looking for a judge who blends into the mahogany paneling of a federal courtroom, he isn't your guy. Since his 2020 appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he’s become a sort of lightning rod for everything that makes modern American law feel like a contact sport.
He's brilliant. He's arguably abrasive. And he is definitely not afraid to make his colleagues very, very uncomfortable.
The Rocky Start: That "Not Qualified" Rating
Most judicial nominations follow a predictable script of polite questions and scripted answers. VanDyke’s confirmation was different. It was basically a car crash in slow motion. Before he even sat down for his hearing, the American Bar Association (ABA) dropped a bomb. They rated him "Not Qualified."
That doesn't happen often for a Harvard Law grad who served as Solicitor General for two different states (Montana and Nevada). The ABA’s letter was brutal. It claimed anonymous peers called him "arrogant" and "lazy." It even suggested he might not be fair to LGBTQ litigants.
During the hearing, VanDyke actually broke down in tears. He flatly denied the accusations of bias. Conservative allies jumped to his defense, pointing out that the ABA evaluator had previously donated to VanDyke’s political opponent in Montana. It was a mess.
📖 Related: Casualties Vietnam War US: The Raw Numbers and the Stories They Don't Tell You
But he got confirmed anyway. 51-44.
"You're Welcome": The Judge Who Writes His Own Reversals
If you want to understand how Lawrence VanDyke operates, you have to look at McDougall v. County of Ventura. This was a 2022 case about California closing gun stores during the COVID-19 pandemic. VanDyke wrote the majority opinion saying the closures were unconstitutional.
Then, he did something weird.
He wrote a separate "concurrence" to his own opinion. In it, he basically mocked the rest of the Ninth Circuit. He predicted—correctly—that the full court would vote to rehear the case en banc and overturn him.
👉 See also: Carlos De Castro Pretelt: The Army Vet Challenging Arlington's Status Quo
To save them the trouble, he literally wrote a "mock" opinion for them, showing how they could use their own "malleable" legal tests to reach the opposite conclusion. He ended the alternative draft with two words: "You’re welcome." It was the judicial equivalent of a mic drop, or maybe a middle finger. Depends on who you ask.
The YouTube Dissent and the Gun Video
Fast forward to early 2025. VanDyke took his "showing vs. telling" philosophy to a whole new level. In a dissent over California’s magazine capacity limits, he didn't just write 50 pages of legal prose.
He uploaded an 18-minute video to YouTube.
In the video, filmed in his judicial chambers with an AK-47 mounted on the wall behind him, he wore his robes and physically demonstrated how different handgun components work. He was trying to prove that the state’s lawyers didn't understand the mechanics of the weapons they were trying to regulate.
✨ Don't miss: Blanket Primary Explained: Why This Voting System Is So Controversial
His colleagues were livid. Judge Marsha Berzon called the video "wildly improper." She argued he was essentially trying to be an "expert witness" from the bench, which is a huge no-no in appellate law. VanDyke’s response? Basically, that the majority’s understanding of guns was "unrealistic" and "inconsistent with reality."
Why He Actually Matters in 2026
It’s easy to get distracted by the drama, but Lawrence VanDyke represents a massive shift in the federal judiciary. He is part of a wave of "Next Gen" conservative judges who aren't just originalists—they’re fighters.
- Second Amendment: He treats the right to bear arms as a "first-class right," often clashing with California and Hawaii’s strict regulations.
- Administrative Law: He’s a frequent critic of the "administrative state," often siding against federal agencies and for state autonomy.
- Immigration: He frequently dissents when the Ninth Circuit refuses to deport individuals, calling some of his colleagues' decisions "abysmal."
He’s clearly playing a long game. Some legal analysts think his "viral" dissents are actually auditions for a future Supreme Court vacancy. Whether he's a "bully" or a "truth-teller" depends entirely on your politics, but he’s undeniably one of the most influential voices on the West Coast.
What to Watch for Next
If you’re following the courts this year, keep an eye on how VanDyke handles the inevitable appeals regarding "ghost guns" and new state-level abortion restrictions. He has shown a willingness to uphold strict state laws when they align with his reading of the Constitution (like in Idaho) while shredding others (like in California).
Actionable Insights for Legal Watchers:
- Read the Dissents: In the Ninth Circuit, the real action is often in the dissents. VanDyke’s writing is surprisingly readable compared to the usual legalese.
- Monitor En Banc Petitions: Whenever a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of gun rights, look for VanDyke’s name. If he's on the panel, expect a "pre-emptive" strike against the full court.
- Check the Citations: Look for how often other conservative judges on the Fifth or Eleventh Circuits start citing VanDyke’s "mock" opinions. It’s a sign of how much his "rebel" style is catching on.
Lawrence VanDyke isn't going anywhere. He has a lifetime appointment. And he clearly has a lot more to say.