Ninth Circuit Judge Demands Supreme Court Reverse Its Own 2A Rulings
Judge Lawrence VanDyke broke ranks with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 16, 2026, declaring the court needs a Supreme Court "benchslap" for its pattern of hostile Second Amendment decisions. The court denied en banc review of a three-judge panel decision that upheld California's ban on switchblade knives. VanDyke's dissent, joined by seven other judges, states directly: it's time for SCOTUS to summarily reverse some of the Ninth Circuit's "wayward" 2A rulings.
Key Details
- The Ninth Circuit panel upheld California's switchblade prohibition despite recent Supreme Court precedent signaling stricter scrutiny of gun laws
- Eight judges dissented from the denial of en banc review, a significant bloc questioning the panel's reasoning
- VanDyke's language—calling for summary reversal rather than full briefing—signals the dissent views the panel decision as clearly inconsistent with New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022)
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This dissent exposes deep fracture lines in the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment cases. California residents and nationwide gun owners face an appellate court that continues applying pre-Bruen logic to uphold sweeping restrictions. VanDyke's call for summary reversal is unusual—it signals the dissenting judges view the majority's decision not as a close call, but as legally indefensible under current Supreme Court doctrine. If SCOTUS takes notice, it could trigger a wave of reversals affecting everything from magazine capacity laws to carry restrictions across the West Coast. For now, California gun owners should expect continued losses in the Ninth Circuit until the Supreme Court intervenes directly.
DownRange Analysis
VanDyke's dissent reflects frustration boiling over in appellate courts nationwide. The Ninth Circuit has become predictably hostile to Second Amendment challenges, and eight judges saying so publicly is a pressure signal aimed directly at Supreme Court justices. Summary reversal—SCOTUS deciding without full briefing—happens when lower courts ignore binding precedent egregiously. The switchblade ban case appears weak enough that even the Ninth Circuit's conservative wing sees it as indefensible. The real question: will SCOTUS respond? If yes, California faces collateral damage across multiple restrictions. If no, expect the Ninth Circuit to continue its pattern, prompting more cases and more dissents.
