In a highly unusual move, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke released a video publicly criticizing a federal appellate court decision upholding California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines, breaking from the traditional norms of judicial dissent.
VanDyke, a Trump-appointed judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, produced the video shortly after a divided panel ruled in favor of the state’s longstanding law prohibiting the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. In the video, VanDyke sharply rebuked the majority’s reasoning, suggesting the court’s decision undermines Second Amendment rights and reflects an increasingly politicized judiciary.
“Rather than faithfully applying Supreme Court precedent, the majority continues to twist itself into knots to uphold virtually any and all gun regulations,” VanDyke said in the video, using a tone that blended frustration with dry sarcasm. “It seems the Second Amendment is a second-class right in this circuit — if it exists at all.”
The California law, originally passed via voter initiative in 2016, has faced a long and contentious legal battle, with gun rights advocates arguing it violates constitutional protections. While district courts previously struck down the ban, the Ninth Circuit ultimately sided with the state, citing public safety concerns and consistency with historical firearm regulations.
Typically, judges express disagreement through formal written dissents attached to court opinions. Judicial ethics strongly discourage extrajudicial commentary that could be perceived as undermining the integrity or impartiality of the courts. Legal scholars said VanDyke’s decision to go public via video is nearly unprecedented — and controversial.
“This is not how judges are supposed to communicate with the public,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “Judges dissent through their opinions, not through videos or press releases. It risks politicizing the judiciary even further.”
VanDyke, a vocal conservative, has previously drawn attention for his fervent opinions, particularly in cases involving gun rights and religious liberties. His latest move has galvanized both sides of the ongoing national debate over the Second Amendment.
Gun rights organizations hailed VanDyke as a bold voice willing to confront what they describe as judicial hostility toward firearms ownership. “Finally, a judge willing to say out loud what so many Americans feel: the courts are eroding our constitutional rights,” said a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association.
On the other side, gun control advocates condemned the video as inappropriate and damaging. “When judges start campaigning through videos, we all lose faith in an independent judiciary,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action.
The broader implications of VanDyke’s actions remain uncertain. Some legal experts predict increased calls for judicial accountability, while others warn that the norms of judicial behavior — long considered a guardrail against politicization — may be eroding in an era of deep partisan divisions.
Meanwhile, gun rights advocates are already preparing a petition for Supreme Court review, betting that the nation’s highest court, which has recently expanded Second Amendment protections, might take a more favorable view.
Until then, Judge VanDyke’s striking deviation from tradition has sent ripples across the legal and political landscape, raising new questions about how America’s judges — and its courts — engage with the public they serve.
