Judge Pens MAGA-Friendly Dissent That Sure Reads Like A Supreme Court Audition

If judicial opinions were résumés, Judge Lawrence VanDyke just stapled a cover letter to his dissent reading, “Dear Donald Trump, please notice me.“

With rumors swirling that Samuel Alito may be eyeing retirement from the Supreme Court, VanDyke’s latest performance on the Ninth Circuit reads less like a serious judicial disagreement and more like an audition tape for the potentially open seat. And not a subtle one. This is full-on pandering, drenched in the kind of belittling rhetoric that reliably delights Donald Trump and the MAGA faithful who view professionalism as a character flaw.

VanDyke turned a recent dissent into a late-night blog comment section rant, complete with mockery, sarcasm, and a sneering tone that would get a first-year associate hauled into HR by lunchtime. The full en banc court was reviewing a denial of a stay of deportation proceedings for a Peruvian family seeking to remain in the United States while their case is heard. In other words, the stakes were extremely real — whether a family would be deported before the court even finished considering the legality of that deportation.

Transform Legal Reasoning Into Business-Ready Results With General AI

Protégé™ General AI is fundamentally changing how legal professionals use AI in their everyday practice.

Naturally, VanDyke responded by inventing a fictional place called the “Circuit of Wackadoo.”

Yes. Really.

In his dissent, VanDyke spun a bizarre fairy tale about a mythical circuit where “the attorneys are all wise, the judges are all zealous, and the law clerks are all above average.” (Cool joke, everyone, very original.) In Wackadoo, everything is “enlightened and efficient,” except for one fatal flaw: the judges are apparently too busy. To cope, they allegedly adopt an “unwritten practice” of granting administrative stays pending review, a practice VanDyke presents as some kind of radical judicial heresy.

The punchline? VanDyke insists that Wackadoo is not the Ninth Circuit. That would be ridiculous. “That would be crazy,” he writes. “We only do so in immigration cases.”

5 Tips For Proving Your Legal Department’s Value

Join our expert panel on March 3rd at 1pm ET to explore actionable, emerging ways you can gather and proactively share the data that demonstrates the impact of your work.

Ah yes. Immigration cases. Those famously low-stakes matters involving exile, family separation, and irreversible harm. Why wouldn’t judges be extra cautious there?

He doubled down, accusing his colleagues of employing what he calls “manifestly unlawful stay procedures.” Procedures that, he claims, create so many immigration cases that the court then points to the volume to justify continuing the practice.

And here’s where the dissent fully leaves the rails.

According to VanDyke, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue resembles “a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity.” He then helpfully scripts it out:

“We are … (‘You get a stay!’) … sincerely shocked … (‘You get a stay!’) … by the … (‘You get a stay!’) … number of … (‘You get a stay!’) … utterly … (‘You get a stay!’) … meritless … (‘You get a stay!’) … immigration petitions … (‘You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!’) … that are filed … (‘You get a stay!’) … in our court. (‘Everyone gets a stay!’).”

This isn’t a serious critique; it’s performance art aimed squarely at the MAGA audience that has learned to hiss at the words “Ninth Circuit” on command.

And that’s really the tell. This dissent isn’t about persuading colleagues — VanDyke already lost that battle. It’s about mocking fellow judges as unserious, lazy, or ideologically captured, while casting himself as the lone adult in the room bravely resisting the forces of… procedural fairness. VanDyke didn’t need to write like this. He chose to. And he chose a tone and style that just so happens to align perfectly with the man who would get to nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

Of course, VanDyke can afford this blatant pandering. Lifetime tenure means he doesn’t answer to voters, clients, or managing partners. He doesn’t need collegial goodwill. He doesn’t even need to pretend this dissent might change anyone’s mind. He just needs to make sure the right people (Donald Trump) notice that he’s very angry about immigration cases.

The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].