The recent dissent by Judge Lawrence VanDyke in a transgender rights case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has sparked significant controversy, reflecting both the delicate nature of the case and the dynamics among the judges. VanDyke’s dissenting opinion, which referred to the case as “a case of swinging dicks,” has drawn criticism from his colleagues who emphasized decorum and professionalism, urging, “we are better than this.”
This incident arose from a case concerning the rights of a transgender individual, where the majority opinion favored upholding those rights. In stark contrast, VanDyke’s dissent employed language that some felt undermined the gravity and sensitivity of the subject. More details can be found in this Law.com article.
Judge Marsha Berzon, leading the concurring judges, expressed dismay at VanDyke’s language choice, articulating that such offhand comments are more akin to “barroom talk” and have no place in judicial opinions. The rebuke signals a broader debate within the judiciary about tone and rhetoric in legal discourse, especially on issues as contentious as transgender rights.
The 9th Circuit has been at the forefront of adjudicating rights for marginalized communities, often becoming a barometer for national legal trends. Previous rulings from this court underscore the importance of measured and respectful discourse. For additional context on the court’s approach, NPR discussed the court’s balance between progressive and conservative rulings in this analysis of recent decisions.
This development is not just an internal matter. It raises questions about the evolving language and culture of legal opinions in a diverse society. As legal battles over sex and gender identity continue to proliferate across the United States, this incident underscores the importance of maintaining judicial decorum as a framework for fairness and justice, an opinion widely shared in a New York Times editorial.
The judges’ public condemnation of their colleague reflects an adherence to traditional standards of conduct which they deem necessary for the judiciary’s integrity. As the judiciary navigates complex societal issues, the emphasis on respectful communication becomes not just a matter of protocol, but a cornerstone of judicial practice.