In a controversial move, Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke has openly called for the Supreme Court to start summarily reversing decisions of his own court regarding Second Amendment cases—not for legal missteps, but to publicly chastise his colleagues. Such a bold statement was made in his dissent last week when the Ninth Circuit denied a rehearing en banc in the case of Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta.

Judge VanDyke, known for not shying away from provocative language and actions, suggests that only the embarrassment of a quick reversal from the highest court would make the Ninth Circuit reconsider its stance on arms restrictions. He argues that humiliation is the "only currency" his colleagues might understand, proposing that the Supreme Court should employ "benchslaps" to correct what he sees as a persistent bias in firearm regulation cases.

This isn't the first time VanDyke has used eyebrow-raising rhetoric. Earlier this year, he sparked a significant backlash with a dissent in a transgender discrimination case, using language that his peers criticized as unbecoming of the judicial office. In response, 27 of his colleagues, including the Chief Judge, condemned his tone, emphasizing the importance of dignity in judiciary proceedings.

Despite facing criticism, VanDyke doubled down in his latest writings, using the term "benchslap," a slang popularized by legal commentators for a judicial rebuke. He defends this choice by citing its inclusion in Black’s Law Dictionary, arguing it's appropriate despite its origins in less formal legal discourse.

The judge's aggressive approach has not only stirred controversy within his circuit but also raised questions about his broader intentions. His repeated use of such tactics seems aimed at attracting attention for potential elevation to higher judicial roles, including the Supreme Court. This strategy, however, has been met with mixed reactions, with some viewing it as a mere ploy for attention, lacking substantive legal argumentation.

VanDyke's actions highlight a deep divide within the Ninth Circuit, reflecting broader national debates over judicial decorum, the interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the role of public reprimand in judicial processes. As the legal community continues to debate these issues, the implications of VanDyke's proposals on the judiciary's public perception and internal dynamics remain a topic of keen interest and concern.