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

Above the Law

by Kathryn Rubino

February 24, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent in a Ninth Circuit case has sparked controversy for its overt MAGA-aligned tone and perceived audition-like qualities for a potential Supreme Court vacancy. The dissent, which criticized the court’s handling of an immigration case involving a Peruvian family seeking to remain in the U.S., was filled with sharp rhetoric, sarcasm, and a mockingly invented “Circuit of Wackadoo” to deride his colleagues. This approach has led many to view the dissent not as a serious legal critique but as a performative appeal to MAGA supporters, particularly amid rumors that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito may retire soon. The case centered on whether the Ninth Circuit should grant a stay in deportation proceedings while the legality of the deportation was being reviewed. VanDyke’s dissent argued against his colleagues’ alleged “unwritten practice” of granting administrative stays, which he dismissed as “manifestly unlawful.” His tone departed from traditional judicial decorum, employing hyperbolic language and even scripting a parody of the court’s supposed internal dialogue. This included a satirical take on the court’s handling of immigration cases, likening it to an absurd reality TV-style giveaway. VanDyke’s dissent has been criticized for its lack of seriousness and its apparent pandering to MAGA-aligned audiences rather than engaging in thoughtful legal debate. Legal experts argue that his approach undermines judicial professionalism and risks alienating colleagues who view such partisanship as incompatible with impartial justice. The incident highlights broader concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and the potential impact on public trust in the courts. The case also underscores the high stakes of immigration cases, which often involve family separation and irreversible harm. VanDyke’s dissent has drawn sharp rebukes for its tone and perceived lack of empathy toward such issues. Critics argue that his approach not only fails to persuade but also risks further polarizing an already divided judiciary. Ultimately, this controversy reflects the broader tension between judicial independence and the growing influence of political ideology in legal decision-making. VanDyke’s dissent raises important questions about how judges balance their personal views with the need for impartiality, especially in high-profile cases involving immigration and civil rights.

Verticals

legalnews

Originally published on Above the Law on 2/24/2026