Judges Criticize Dissenting Opinion on Transgender Policy in Ninth Circuit

Judge Lawrence VanDyke's dissent in a Ninth Circuit ruling has drawn sharp criticism from his colleagues for its crude language regarding transgender rights. The dissent, which addresses a decision requiring a women-only spa to admit transgender women, has prompted a response from 29 federal judges who condemned VanDyke's remarks as undermining public trust in the judiciary.

The core issue revolves around the balance between transgender rights and the rights of women in private spaces. VanDyke's dissent, released on March 12, argues that the court's decision disregards the concerns of women and girls who may feel uncomfortable in such environments. Critics, including Senior Judge M. Margaret McKeown, stated that VanDyke's use of language such as "swinging dicks" is inappropriate for a judicial opinion and detracts from the seriousness of the court's role.

In his dissent, VanDyke contends that the spa's owners, who are Christian, have legitimate concerns about their business being forced to admit individuals who do not align with their values. He wrote, "Sometimes, ‘dignified’ words are employed to mask a legal abomination." This statement highlights his belief that the court's ruling fails to consider the implications for women and girls who frequent the spa, some as young as thirteen.

Judicial Response

The backlash from VanDyke's colleagues was swift. In a joint statement, 27 judges from the Ninth Circuit criticized his comments as "vulgar barroom talk" that could damage public confidence in the judicial system. They emphasized that such language is unbecoming of judges and does not reflect the decorum expected in legal opinions. Judge John B. Owens, an Obama appointee, remarked, "We are better than this," indicating a desire for a more respectful discourse within the judiciary.

The media coverage of VanDyke's dissent has also drawn attention, with outlets like Reuters and Bloomberg Law highlighting the controversy surrounding his choice of words. Critics argue that the focus on language detracts from the substantive issues at hand regarding transgender rights and women's safety. Supporters of the dissent, however, argue that VanDyke's language was intended to provoke thought about the implications of the ruling rather than to offend.

Broader Context

This dissent is part of a larger national conversation about transgender rights and the legal protections afforded to individuals in the LGBTQ+ community. The Ninth Circuit's ruling has been viewed by some as a significant step in affirming transgender rights, while others see it as an infringement on the rights of women and girls in private spaces. The debate reflects broader societal tensions regarding gender identity and the rights of individuals in various contexts.

VanDyke, appointed by former President Donald Trump in 2019, has a history of controversial opinions that have drawn both support and criticism. His dissent in this case follows previous instances where he has challenged prevailing judicial norms, including a recent dissent in a gun case that attracted media attention for its unconventional approach.

While the dissent has sparked outrage among some judges and commentators, it has also garnered support from those who believe that VanDyke is addressing important issues that are often overlooked in discussions about transgender rights. The lack of response from supporters of the Ninth Circuit's ruling raises questions about the broader implications of the decision and the ongoing debate over transgender rights in the legal system.

As the conversation continues, the implications of VanDyke's dissent may extend beyond the Ninth Circuit, influencing future legal battles over transgender rights and the rights of women in private spaces. The tension between these competing interests underscores the complexities of navigating legal protections in an evolving social landscape.