Lawrence VanDyke 9th

SEE TRUMP JUDGE

very good, detailled pt 2 Part 1: Leonard Leo Throws a Party | On the Media | WNYC Studios

AN 7 26

A conservative judge on the Ninth Circuit drew rebuke from a colleague after urging the Supreme Court to summarily reverse some of the court’s Second Amendment decisions.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020. He has become known for his combative opinions and remarks. His confrontational language has more than once made him a target for rebukes from other colleagues on the bench.

Such was the case in an appeal of a concealed switchblade law in California, which is a strict ban stopping citizens from "carrying, possessing, or offering to sell or loan a switchblade to another person is a serious crime," explained one criminal law firm.

The law was challenged by knife rights advocates, who argued that it violates the Second Amendment. In the appeal of a lower court's denial, the 9th Circuit panel held the challenge failed because California’s switchblade law had at least one constitutional application: concealed carry.

In VanDyke's view, the decision was wrong. He argued that a concealed-carry prohibition cannot justify a total ban on public carry, and he called for Supreme Court “benchslaps” through summary reversals.

The plaintiffs called for an "en banc" review, and on Thursday, the panel of judges refused. VanDyke penned his own dissent, blasting his colleagues and demanding that the Supreme Court get involved because, for too long, it has allowed Second Amendment laws to remain ambiguous.

"I also write with a modest proposal," said VanDyke. "This case is just the latest chapter in our court’s long and concerning history of refusing to vindicate the Second Amendment. Come hell or high water, Heller or Bruen, our court will find a way to uphold any weapons restriction that a liberal State can dream up. And the Supreme Court’s occasional grant of certiorari [court review request] and reversal has done nothing—and I mean that literally— to change our court’s behavior."

He continued, "In the real world, no boss would tolerate nearly two decades of repeated defiance from a subordinate.

VanDyke's suggestion is that the Supreme Court "should consider summarily reversing some of our wayward Second Amendment decisions" across the 9th Circuit. "To put it more colloquially, it’s time for some benchslaps. Nothing less will give this court any pause before ultimately blessing every arms restriction it reviews."

The demand wasn't ignored. His colleague, Kim McLane Wardlaw, a Bill Clinton appointee, first blasted his dissent, accusing him of going beyond the case and attacking fellow judges, including the late Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

"Neither 'dissental' seriously disputes that California’s prohibition on the concealed carry of switchblade knives is consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition of arms regulation," Wardlaw wrote.

She goes on to explain that even if California can legally ban carrying switchblades hidden on your body, it still can’t use the same law to turn around and ban carrying them openly. It can't be okay in one situation but unconstitutional in the other.

She then turns to VanDyke individually, "Judge VanDyke’s dissent deserves but a brief response. While all agree that the Second Amendment is not 'a second-class right,' ...'constitutional rights . . . come with exceptions,' and, like the First Amendment, 'the Second Amendment is not absolute,'" she wrote, citing both Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

She alleges that VanDyke's dissent issues "attacks on colleagues’ credibility, including those who are deceased, simply because of differing views, is not."

---

lawrence James Christopher VanDyke (born 1972) is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is a former solicitor general of Nevada and Montana.

Early life and education

VanDyke was born in Midland, Texas, and grew up in Bozeman, Montana.^[1] After attending Oklahoma Christian University from 1992 to 1995, VanDyke studied civil engineering at Montana State University, graduating in 1997 with a Bachelor of Science with highest honors. He worked for his family's construction company and did graduate study at Montana State for the next three years, receiving a Master of Construction Engineering Management degree in 2000.^[2]

From 2000 to 2002, VanDyke attended Bear Valley Bible Institute, a Bible college in Denver, Colorado, from which he received a Bachelor of Theology degree summa cum laude. He then attended Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He graduated in 2005 with a Juris Doctor magna cum laude.^[3]

Legal career

VanDyke was in private practice at the law firm Gibson Dunn from 2005 to 2006, then served as a law clerk to judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2006 to 2007. He returned to Gibson Dunn from 2007 to 2012. While in private practice, VanDyke performed pro bono legal work for groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Free Market Foundation, and the Alliance Defending Freedom.^[4][5] In 2010, VanDyke filed an amicus* brief in *Christian Legal Society v. Martinez on behalf of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, in which he argued that a college student group had a First Amendment right to exclude from membership students whose sexual conduct violated the group's stated beliefs.^[6]

From 2012 to 2013, VanDyke was an assistant to the Solicitor General of Texas. He was then appointed the Solicitor General of Montana but resigned in 2014, citing strain in the workplace.^[7][8] As Solicitor General of Montana, he submitted numerous amicus curiae briefs filed in other states. He recommended signing on to other states' challenges to state and federal gun laws, co-wrote a brief supporting an Arizona law prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, and recommended that Montana file a brief in a New Mexico case involving a photographer who refused to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.^[9]

VanDyke later ran unsuccessfully for the Montana Supreme Court. He became Solicitor General of Nevada under Attorney General Adam Laxalt in 2015, where he served until 2019 when he became a deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division.^[10]

Since graduating law school, VanDyke has been a member of the Federalist Society.^[2]

Federal judicial service

:{:{On September 20, 2019, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate VanDyke to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[10] Nevada Senators Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto, both Democrats, announced their opposition in the nomination.^[11] The nomination was to the seat being vacated by Judge Jay Bybee, who previously announced his intention to assume senior status on December 31, 2019.^[12] Six retired justices of the Montana Supreme Court publicly opposed VanDyke's nomination.^[13] VanDyke received a "not qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. }:

An ABA evaluator conducted 60 anonymous interviews with lawyers, judges, and others who had worked with VanDyke. In unusually personal terms, the ABA published a scathing critique of VanDyke in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee; that letter asserted that some interviewees described VanDyke as "'arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice'" of law.^[14] The ABA added that "'There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful'".^[15] The ABA also raised "concerns about whether Mr. VanDyke would be fair to persons who are gay, lesbian, or otherwise part of the LGBTQ community, claiming that "Mr. VanDyke would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community."^[16]}:

On October 30, 2019, a hearing on VanDyke's nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee and it became contentious.^[17] Most of the two-hour hearing was focused on VanDyke's record on LGBTQ issues.^[18] During his confirmation hearing, VanDyke was asked by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), "Did you say that you wouldn't be fair to members of the LGBTQ community?"^[19] VanDyke broke down in tears, denying the accusation: "I did not say that. I do not believe that. It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God and they should all be treated with dignity and respect". Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), questioned VanDyke about an opinion editorial he wrote in 2004 while a student at Harvard Law noting that same-sex marriage may be harmful for children on average. VanDyke stated generally that some of his personal views have changed since that time.^[15] VanDyke said that his ABA evaluator told him that she was in a "hurry" and did not give him the opportunity to fully respond to concerns. The ABA acknowledged that the lead ABA evaluator assigned to VanDyke, Montana attorney Marcia Davenport, had contributed $150 to VanDyke's opponent in a 2014 Montana Supreme Court election.^[20]

The ABA's treatment of VanDyke was widely denounced by conservative commentators. Writing for National Review, John McCormack asked: "Were VanDyke's comments to the ABA twisted or taken wildly out of context in order to paint him as a bigot? It is hard to believe any judicial nominee would suggest during an interview with the ABA that he might not be 'fair' to all litigants." McCormack asked the ABA for a transcript of the relevant portion of its interview with VanDyke, but the ABA declined to provide one.^[19] Legal scholar Adam White, a former member of the ABA's Administrative Law Section, wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that there was "no basis on which to evaluate any of the broad-brush descriptions of Mr. VanDyke. We don't know what basis, if any, his critics have for these judgments, or even who they are. We're expected to take the ABA's disparagement at face value".^[21] The Wall Street Journal editorial board also published a critique of the ABA's treatment of VanDyke.^[22] Writing in The Atlantic, law professor Josh Blackman suggested that "[g]oing forward, when a nominee is rated as unqualified, the transcript should be released, and the recording should be posted publicly online."^[23]

On November 21, 2019, VanDyke's nomination was reported out of committee by a 12–10 vote.^[24] On December 10, 2019, the United States Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 53–40 vote.^[25][26] On December 11, 2019, his nomination was confirmed by a 51–44 vote.^[27][28] He received his judicial commission on January 2, 2020.^[29]

In November 2021, VanDyke blasted the Ninth Circuit's "embarrassing" immigration rulings. He believes that the Ninth Circuit frequently "play[s] [the Board of Immigration Appeals]-for-a-day instead of genuinely deferring to the agency’s decisions."^[30]

Notable opinions

Reports have noted VanDyke's strident dissents in a number of cases.^[31][32][33]

Duncan v. Bonta

One of these dissents was in Duncan v. Bonta, a challenge to a California law that limits gun magazine capacity to 10 bullets. The en banc panel upheld the law, and VanDyke accused the majority of "distrust[ing] gun owners and think[ing] the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution" and having an "undefeated, 50–0 record against the Second Amendment."^[34][35] VanDyke concluded his dissent by saying that the ruling means that "at most, you might get to possess one janky handgun and 2.2 rounds of ammunition, and only in your home under lock and key."

In a concurring opinion to the majority ruling, Judge Andrew Hurwitz singled out VanDyke's dissent and rebuked his colleague "for attacking the personal motives of his sisters and brothers on this Court." Hurwitz pointed out that individual members of the majority panel owned handguns in their homes for self-defense and had served in the military, where they bore arms. Hurwitz called for a higher level of respect, indicating that all federal judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and are duty-bound to interpret the right to bear arms in the context of the public's desire to protect itself from indiscriminate mass shootings, saying: "The people of California should not be precluded from attempting to prevent mass murders simply because they don’t occur regularly enough in the eyes of an unelected Article III judge." In response, VanDyke wrote, "Respectfully, Judge Hurwitz’s claim that our judges’ personal views about the Second Amendment and guns have not affected our jurisprudence is simply not plausible."^[36]

McDougall v. County of Ventura

VanDyke wrote a majority opinion holding that two California counties violated the Second Amendment when they shut down gun and ammunition stores in 2020 as nonessential businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.^[37] In an unusual move, VanDyke wrote a concurrence to his own opinion, predicting that the case will be heard en banc and claiming that "no firearm-related ban or regulation ever ultimately fails" in the Ninth Circuit. He criticized his court's approach to Second Amendment challenges as "exceptionally malleable".^[38] He then attached a 13-page concurrence, writing a ruling in favor of the California counties—the opposite conclusion of his own opinion for the panel—and explaining: "I figure there is no reason why I shouldn’t write an alternative draft opinion that will apply our test in a way more to the liking of the majority of our court. That way I can demonstrate just how easy it is to reach any desired conclusion under our current framework, and the majority of our court can get a jumpstart on calling this case en banc. Sort of a win-win for everyone."^[38] He ended the alternate opinion with "You’re welcome."^[38]

2022 beauty pageant case

VanDyke held in a court case that beauty pageant companies may exclude trans women as part of their freedom of speech rights. In this case, he wrote, "It is commonly understood that beauty pageants are generally designed to express the 'ideal vision of American womanhood'."^[39]

References

"VanDyke seeks to bring appellate law background to Supreme Court". Independent Record. March 13, 2014. Retrieved October 19, 2019.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b "Who Is Lawrence VanDyke?". National Review. September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 21, 2019.
"Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees" (PDF). 2019.
Severino, Carrie (September 20, 2019). "Who Is Lawrence VanDyke?". National Review. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
Volz, Matt (October 25, 2014). "Colleague questions VanDyke's experience". Great Falls Tribune.
Lithwick, Dahlia; Stern, Mark Joseph (November 1, 2019). "The latest 'unqualified' Trump judicial nominee thinks he's the real victim". Slate. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
FAL Published October 25, 2014 (October 25, 2014). "Great Falls Tribune". Great Falls Tribune. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
Charles S. Johnson IR State Bureau (May 9, 2014). "VanDyke resigning as state solicitor general | State and Regional". helenair.com. Retrieved October 30, 2019.
John S. Adams (September 18, 2014). "Montana Supreme Court: VanDyke takes the spotlight". Great Falls Tribune. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b "President Donald J. Trump Announces Judicial Nominees and United States Marshal Nominee". whitehouse.gov. September 20, 2019. Retrieved September 20, 2019 – via National Archives. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Sanchez, Humberto (September 20, 2019). "Nevada senators raise concerns about Trump's intention to tap ex-Nevada solicitor general for Ninth Circuit". Nevada Independent. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
"Twenty-five Nominations and Three Withdrawals Sent to the Senate". whitehouse.gov – via National Archives.
Nelson, James C. (November 2, 2019). "Guest view: VanDyke unqualified for judgeship". Montana Standard. Retrieved December 21, 2019.
Hardy, Nathan R.; Jolly, Richard L (December 18, 2019). "Opinion: Trump is packing courts with right-wing ideologues. Democrats, what's your plan?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 21, 2019.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Blitzer, Ronn (October 30, 2019). "Trump judicial pick breaks down in tears at hearing over legal group's attack". Fox News.
Knowles, Hannah (October 30, 2019). "Trump judicial nominee cries over scathing letter from the American Bar Association". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
"Nominations | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary". www.judiciary.senate.gov. October 30, 2019.
Keen, Lisa. "Bay Area Reporter :: Online Extra: Trump judicial nominee defends himself against anti-LGBT claims". Ebar.com. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b McCormack, John (October 31, 2019). "The ABA's Attack on Lawrence VanDyke Doesn't Make Sense". National Review. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
de Vogue, Ariane; Rogers, Alex (October 30, 2019). "'Not qualified' rating and accusation from American Bar Association moves Trump nominee to tears". CNN. Retrieved October 30, 2019.
White, Adam (October 30, 2019). "Another Smear Campaign From the American Bar Association". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
"The ABA Strikes Again". Wall Street Journal. October 30, 2019. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
Blackman, Josh (November 6, 2019). "The American Bar Association Broke Its Own Rules". The Atlantic.
"Results of Executive Business Meeting – November 21, 2019, Senate Judiciary Committee" (PDF).
"On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Lawrence VanDyke to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit)". www.senate.gov. Retrieved December 10, 2019.
"VanDyke nomination for 9th Circuit Court clears procedural vote". December 11, 2019.
"On the Nomination (Confirmation: Lawrence VanDyke, of Nevada, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit)". www.senate.gov. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
Stern, Mark Joseph (December 11, 2019). "Senate Confirms Trump Judicial Nominee Who Cried When Confronted With Anti-Gay Record". Slate.
Lawrence VanDyke at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
"Nababan v. Garland" (PDF).
"In barbed dissents, Trump appointees call out 9th Circuit colleagues in immigration case". Reuters. March 25, 2021. Retrieved October 13, 2021.
Journal, A. B. A. "Dissenting judge says 9th Circuit took habeas dysfunction to new level with 'hypothetical dicta'". ABA Journal. Retrieved October 13, 2021.
"Trump Appointee Accuses Ninth Circuit of 'Judge-Jitsu' and 'Mischief' in Immigration Ruling". The Recorder. Retrieved October 13, 2021.
"Court Upholds California's Ban On High-Capacity Gun Magazines". Huffington Post. November 30, 2021. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
"Virginia Duncan et al. v. Rob Bonta" (PDF). ca9.uscourts.gov. November 30, 2021. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
"Duncan v. Bonta" (PDF).
Cullum, Jacob (January 21, 2022). "9th Circuit Panel Says Pandemic-Inspired Shutdowns of Gun Stores Were Unconstitutional". Reason. Retrieved January 22, 2022.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Zoppo, Avalon (January 20, 2022). "'You're Welcome': 9th Circuit Judge Writes Alternative Opinion for Ruling on COVID Gun Shop Closures". National Law Journal. Retrieved January 22, 2022.
"U.S. beauty pageant can exclude transgender contestants, court rules". NBC News. Reuters. November 3, 2022.

External links

Lawrence VanDyke at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
Lawrence VanDyke at Ballotpedia

{nl}Judges of the United States courts of appeals|

Categories:

---

===

welcome to the FedSoc Twelve, a Balls & Strikes series about some of Donald Trump’s most unhinged judicial appointees. These judges, whether in their legal opinions or their off-the-clock conduct, have continued to push Trump’s agenda from the bench, forming something of a life-tenured Originalism Caucus within the federal judiciary. This summer, we’ll be checking in on these men and women now that they’ve gotten a chance to spread their wings under the Biden administration—and as they fight to be first in line for a Supreme promotion the next time Republicans control the White House.

The Resume:

Lawrence VanDyke graduated from a Denver-based bible college that still teaches that “God’s original plan, from the beginning, was one man and one woman for life,” that remarriage after divorce is a sin, and that women must “assum[e] a submissive position” in the church. Worse, he went to Harvard Law School.

Before joining Harvard Law Review in 2003, VanDyke was an editor for the school’s Journal of Law and Public Policy. This particular Journal has a fancy name, but it is a right-wing rag; it sells itself as “the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship” and is a “sister organization” of Harvard’s Federalist Society. VanDyke is, of course, a member of the Federalist Society.

Safely ensconced in the heights of the conservative legal movement, VanDyke never left. His resume is a who’s-who of right-wing government law offices. After clerking for Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a George W. Bush appointee, he joined the Texas Solicitor General’s office before becoming Solicitor General in both Montana and Nevada.

In Nevada, VanDyke had his dream job, signing on to other states’ high-profile lawsuits against the Obama administration and doing very little day-to-day legal work. Before that, he had hoped to do the same in Montana, but Montana’s Attorney General actually expected him to take depositions, respond to discovery requests, and otherwise do the grunt work of litigating the cases he decided to bring. Faced with the prospect of having to actually practice law, VanDyke quit in a huff, ran for the Montana Supreme Court, lost, then fled to Nevada. In 2019, Trump appointed him to work in the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division before nominating him to the Ninth Circuit later that year.

VanDyke faced an unusual Senate confirmation battle in part because the American Bar Association rated him not qualified to be a judge. The ABA said former colleagues described him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice.” The ABA went on to say that he “lacks humility … does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid or truthful.” But what the Judiciary Committee found even more troubling were concerns his colleagues raised that he may not “be fair to persons who are … part of the LGBTQ community.” When asked about this last remark during his confirmation hearing, VanDyke, replying while crying that “It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God, and they should all be treated with dignity and respect.” Stay tuned on that!

===

no lnx missoulian

EDITOR'S PICK TOPICAL

Architect of US court shift used Montana as stepping stone

Andy Kroll, Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz - ProPublica Oct 17, 2023 3

Editor's note: ProPublica and WNYC’s “On The Media" reporters investigated the web of money, influence and power behind the conservative takeover of America’s courts — and the man at the center of it all: Leonard Leo.

Historians and legal experts say there is no comparable figure in American jurisprudence. To the extent Leo is known, it’s for his role helping to install the conservative supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court. But his reach extends far beyond that. Decades ago, he realized it was not enough to have justices on his side. Those jurists needed to decide the right cases, brought by the right lawyers and heard by the right lower court judges. He built a machine to do just that.

Find “We Don't Talk About Leonard” wherever you get your podcasts or read the complete text version here.

People are also reading…

Republicans drop Jim Jordan as House speaker nominee, putting them back at square one 17 days after McCarthy's ouster

Business Buzz: New airline; new coffee shop; downtown event

Wintry weather to follow warm weekend

'Bittersweet': Arrest made in young Indigenous woman's Highway 93 death

The following excerpt covers Leonard Leo’s influence placing Federalist Society-backed lawyers in state attorneys general offices, including Montana’s, to influence the national legal agenda.

In 2013, Mike Black, Leo’s former classmate at Cornell Law, was leading the civil division of the Montana attorney general’s office as a career employee. A new attorney general had just been elected, bringing with him a number of new staffers to the office. Black had a matter to discuss with one of them: a tall, rangy Harvard Law School graduate named Lawrence VanDyke. VanDyke had been hired as solicitor general, the top appellate litigator in the attorney general’s office, responsible for defending state laws.

Standing in VanDyke’s office, Black noticed several bobblehead dolls on a shelf. “There was like Scalia for sure. And I think probably Alito, there were like four or five. And then there was this one younger-looking guy, and I said, ‘Well, who the heck is this?’” Black recalled. “And he goes, ‘Well, that’s Leonard Leo.’”

Black was astonished.

What Black did not know was that by that time Leo had helped to cultivate an entire generation of conservative lawyers on the rise. The system was like a positive feedback loop: Young attorneys could accelerate their own careers by affiliating with the Federalist Society and then prove their worth by advancing bold, conservative doctrines in the courts. Leo himself would suggest candidates to state attorneys general. According to one former Republican attorney general: “He won’t say, ‘Hire this person,’ in a bossy way. He’ll say: ‘This is a good guy. You should check him out.’”

Senate OK's appeals court judge over home-state opposition

In this Sept. 23, 2014, file photo, former Montana Solicitor General Lawrence VanDyke, center, talks with law students Jason Collins, left, and Tyler Dugger before a Montana Supreme Court candidate forum at the University of Montana. The Senate confirmed VanDyke as a federal appeals court judge despite a “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association and sharp opposition from his home-state senators.

Lido Vizzutti, Associated Press

In 2014, the Republican Attorneys General Association, a campaign group, became a standalone organization. The first 17 contributions were for $350 apiece. Then came a donation of a quarter of a million dollars. It came from JCN (Judicial Crisis Network). Rebranded as The Concord Fund, the group remains RAGA’s biggest and most reliable funder today. (In response to questions for this story, RAGA’s executive director said, “Leonard Leo has done more to advance conservative causes than any single person in the history of the country.”)

Attorneys general are more likely than private plaintiffs to have the ability, or standing, to bring the types of high-impact cases prioritized by Leo and his network. After the federal government itself, state attorneys general collectively are the second-largest plaintiff in the Supreme Court.

National approach to law

VanDyke had been a Federalist Society member since his time at Harvard Law. He was an editor of the conservative Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He worked at a major firm in Washington under Gene Scalia, the Supreme Court justice’s son, before becoming assistant solicitor general in Texas.

Despite his skill and credentials, VanDyke quickly alienated colleagues in the Montana attorney general’s office. Black said VanDyke had little appetite for the bread-and-butter state court cases that came with the job. Instead, emails show, VanDyke was excited by hot-button issues, often happening out of state. For example, he recommended Montana join a challenge to New York’s restrictive gun laws, passed after the Sandy Hook school massacre, adding as an aside in an email, “plus semi-auto firearms are fun to hunt elk with, as the attached picture attests :)” VanDyke persuaded Montana to join an amicus in the Hobby Lobby case, which led to the Supreme Court recognizing for the first time a private company as having religious rights.

For many years, solicitor general was considered a slow-metabolism job. VanDyke, who declined to comment, represented a new generation who had a distinctly aggressive, national approach to the law. Just recently, state solicitors obtained an injunction blocking federal agencies from working with social media companies to fight disinformation, persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to undo the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan and limited the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Dobbs, the ruling that ended women’s right to an abortion, was argued by Mississippi’s solicitor general.

For VanDyke, state solicitor general was a stepping stone on the judiciary path, especially with Leo’s hand at his back. In 2014, he quit the Montana attorney general’s office to run for state Supreme Court, in what turned out to be a bitter contest inflamed by record independent expenditures. The Republican State Leadership Committee, which received funding from JCN, spent more than $400,000 to support VanDyke. He lost. After that, Leo made at least one call on VanDyke’s behalf to an official who might be in a position to give him a job, a person with knowledge of the situation said. This was not an uncommon move.

Leo said he did not recall making calls on VanDyke’s behalf. He acknowledged nurturing the careers of a whole generation of young conservative attorneys, among them VanDyke; Andrew Ferguson, the Virginia solicitor general; Kathryn Mizelle, the federal judge who struck down the federal mask mandate for air travel; and Aileen Cannon, the federal judge overseeing the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents case.

After Montana, VanDyke landed in Nevada as solicitor general under Adam Laxalt, an ally of Leo’s. In the Trump administration, VanDyke worked briefly for the Justice Department before the president nominated him to be a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Less than a year later, Trump released a fourth list of potential Supreme Court nominees. More than a third of the names were alumni of state attorneys general offices.

The final name on the list: Lawrence VanDyke.

'Entirely nutty'

In August 2012, the attorney general of Texas, Greg Abbott, had a conference call scheduled with Leo. It was Leo’s third calendar meeting with Abbott that year, records show. (Abbott is now the governor.) This meeting included not only Abbott and Leo, but also hedge fund manager Paul Singer. Two attorneys representing a small Texas bank, which had sued the Obama administration over its rewrite of banking laws, were invited. The meeting, which hasn’t previously been reported, highlights another key lever in Leo’s machine: The ability to bring donors’ policy priorities to public servants who can do something about those priorities.

After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, aimed at preventing another meltdown. Singer became one of the law’s biggest critics. In op-eds and in speeches, he argued that the new banking rules were unworkable and that efforts to prevent banks from becoming too big to fail could in fact make the system more fragile. Singer was especially critical of a provision known as “orderly liquidation authority,” which allows regulators to quickly wind down troubled institutions, calling it “entirely nutty.”

Leo took up the cause. According to interviews and meeting details obtained by the liberal watchdog group Accountable.US, Leo spoke with attorneys general in at least three states about a legal challenge to Dodd-Frank. He scheduled conference calls with the Oklahoma and Texas attorneys general at the time, Scott Pruitt and Abbott, respectively, to talk about what they could do about Dodd-Frank.

Oklahoma and Texas joined the bank’s case as co-plaintiffs. Montana joined, too. A person who worked in the Montana attorney general’s office said Leo called its newly elected leader, Republican Tim Fox, about the case. Montana would not have joined the suit, this person said, if Leo had not called Fox. VanDyke, then Montana’s solicitor general, became an attorney of record on the case.

Singer, Fox, Abbott and VanDyke did not comment for this story. Leo told ProPublica he didn’t recall a meeting with Abbott and Singer, and didn’t remember placing a call to Fox. He said he supported a legal challenge to the Dodd-Frank law on the grounds that its creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional.

In total, 11 states signed on. When they joined, the suit was amended to specifically challenge orderly liquidation authority as unconstitutional — the provision that Singer had singled out for criticism. For two years, the suit advanced through the courts, landing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2015. After an adverse ruling there, the attorneys general dropped out.

There had been doubters. A high-ranking attorney in the Texas attorney general’s office thought the suit was likely to fail. One former Republican attorney general from a different state said he didn’t believe the suit was critical to his state’s interests.

Leo’s network made an example of one. After Greg Zoeller, Indiana’s Republican attorney general, did not sign on, The Washington Times ran an opinion piece by JCN’s policy counsel — himself a former assistant attorney general in Missouri — speculating that Indiana’s attorney general may have been motivated by “strong alliances with Wall Street banks.” After two terms, Zoeller chose not to run for reelection in 2016, saying before he left office, “I don’t know if I fit today’s political arena.”

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. See all its reporting at propublica.org

Incarceration rates in Montana

Stacker compiled statistics about incarceration demographics in Montana using data from the Sentencing Project. All data is from 2019 unless o…

Alito took luxury trip with GOP donor, then ruled on his cases

By failing to disclose the private jet flight, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appears to have violated federal law requiring disclosure of…

Native American families are being broken up in spite of a law meant to keep children with their parents

In 2018, not long after Hinojosa’s daughter turned one year old, a South Dakota Department of Social Services caseworker had come to Hinojosa’…

Nevada's chief attorney continues to practice law despite not having taken the state bar and the expiration of his two-year temporary license.

Solicitor General Lawrence VanDyke has been given special and unprecedented dispensation by the state Bar of Nevada, which has granted an emergency extension in apparent contravention of a Supreme Court edict.

The situation has caused tensions between Attorney General Adam Laxalt's office and the state Bar, which advised VanDyke in October 2015 that he did not have to take the exam so long as he worked for the AG's office. With the scent of a lawsuit in the air, the Bar's director of admissions, Brian Kunzi, said late Friday, "Ultimately, this will probably end up in the Supreme Court."

Nevada Solicitor General Lawrence VanDyke has been allowed to practice law as a “non-member attorney” of the Bar since Jan. 23, 2015, records show. The Bar certification indicates he was allowed to practice as the state’s highest unelected lawyer under Supreme Court Rule 49.8, which is for “limited practice for certain deputy attorneys general.”

But the rule sets a two-year expiration date and is unequivocal: “In no event shall certification to practice under this rule remain in effect longer than 2 years.”

That two-year period expired Monday for VanDyke and will soon end for other deputies, including Adam Laxalt’s chief of staff, Nick Trutanich, who does not actually practice law as the attorney general’s top aide. (Some states allow experienced lawyers to waive into the bar, but Nevada does not.)

But both VanDyke, who is licensed in other states and before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Trutanich, a veteran lawyer who worked in California, have received certificates extending their tickets despite the absolute prohibition in the high court rule. How?

"The (Supreme Court) rule is what the rule says," Kunzi acknowledged. "But if they (VanDyke and others) got information from the state Bar and relied on it and didn't take the bar..."

Several sources for this story used the term "detrimental reliance" in talking about this case, a legal term that suggests a lawsuit is possible. The reason?

VanDyke says he did not take the bar because he relied on an email from the Bar in October 2015 that assured him he could practice in Nevada for as long as he was employed in the attorney general’s office, which seems to contradict the Supreme Court rule. VanDyke, according to an email chain I have obtained, asked Bar Member Services specialist Laurie Scheffler to confirm what he claims Kunzi's lieutenant, Dean Fernandez, told him.

"Laurie -- Dean Fernandez told me that I should follow‐up with you to confirm a question about the length of time a Deputy AG can practice under the limited practice rule of SCR 49.8," VanDyke wrote to Scheffler on Oct. 7, 2015.

The following day, she wrote back to VanDyke: "I just checked the Nevada SC Rule 49.8," she wrote. "It indicates that a deputy AG can practice for as long as he/she is employed by the Nevada Attorney General’s Office."

VanDyke and others in Laxalt's office thought the matter was closed. But a Bar staffer called the solicitor general earlier this month to tell him his ability to practice was coming to an end. After VanDyke showed Bar officials the Scheffler email, Kunzi decided he had to investigate and granted what he called an "emergency" extension.

Has that ever happened before? "I don't believe so," Kunzi said. "Not that I am aware of."

But because of the uncertainty and the Monday deadline, Kunzi said, he had to act and launch an investigation. So he drew up emergency extensions for VanDyke and Trutanich.

"I did that on an emergency basis because of the potential problem of the certificate expiring and because of the information (the Oct. 2015 email) that was provided to me," Kunzi said. But, he added, "I'm not buying everything that's out there," indicating VanDyke's claim that Fernandez advised him he didn't have to take the bar is only the solicitor general's assertion. And, he said, "They (VanDyke and other deputies) did not take the bar exam. There were three bar exams. They didn't do that."

"As a long-time member in good standing with the bars of three other states, as well as the bars of numerous federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, obviously my intent has always been to strictly comply with whatever the Nevada Bar requires,” VanDyke said in a statement to The Nevada Independent. “Which is why I repeatedly confirmed with multiple officials of the Nevada Bar that I am not required to take the bar exam to practice in the Nevada Attorney General’s office. If the Nevada Bar wants to change that policy going forward, I have no problem with that. I think that it just needs to be clear that I deliberately sought out the Bar’s guidance on this question, that I have always strictly complied with the Bar’s policy as it was explained to me, and that I can’t imagine how anyone could think that I, or anyone else, should be prejudiced for having done that."

Kunzi said questions also have been raised about the line after the absolute two-year limit in the Supreme Court rule, one that refers to an annual renewal. "Is there really a conflict with the two years?" Kunzi asked, rhetorically?

That may be a question the high court justices may soon have to answer.

[### The Worst Trump Judge in America is Lawrence VanDyke

Balls and Strikes

https://ballsandstrikes.org › Articles Archive](https://ballsandstrikes.org/fedsoc-twelve/the-worst-trump-judge-is-lawrence-vandyke/)

Jun 23, 2023 — Welcome to the FedSoc Twelve, a Balls & Strikes series about some of Donald Trump's most unhinged judicial appointees.

[### Oppose the Confirmation of Lawrence VanDyke to the U.S. ...

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

https://civilrights.org › Library](https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-lawrence-vandyke-to-the-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit/)

Oct 29, 2019 — The Senate must reject Mr. VanDyke for a lifetime position on the Ninth Circuit, the nation's largest circuit court. Attacked LGBTQ Rights: Mr.

[### Trump judicial nominee cries over scathing letter ...

Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2019/10/30 › tru...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/30/trump-judicial-nominee-cries-over-scathing-letter-american-bar-association/)

Oct 30, 2019 — Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nominee disputed the ABA's report that he “would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to ...

[### MURPHY: VANDYKE'S RADICAL OPINIONS ON GUNS ...

Senator Chris Murphy (.gov)

https://www.murphy.senate.gov › press-releases › mu...](https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-vandykes-radical-opinions-on-guns-are-outside-the-conservative-mainstream)

Dec 11, 2019 — “As Solicitor General of Montana, he argued that the federal government should not have the power to regulate gun ownership in his state of ...

[### Republicans Confirm Judge Rated 'Not Qualified' For ...

HuffPost

https://www.huffpost.com › entry](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lawrence-vandyke-federal-judge-trump-lazy-ideologue_n_5df1667be4b01e0f29597082)

Dec 11, 2019 — Lawrence VanDyke's own colleagues describe him as an ideologue who may not be fair to LGBTQ litigants. The GOP confirmed him anyway.

[### Leonard Leo: The man behind the GOP's SCOTUS ...

The Maine Monitor

https://themainemonitor.org › we-dont-talk-about-leo...](https://themainemonitor.org/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority/)

Oct 12, 2023 — Within a year of the party, another attendee, Republican North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger Jr. (no relation), would write the ...

[### Attorney General Tim Fox - Congratulations to former ... Facebook

https://m.facebook.com › AGTimFox › photos](https://m.facebook.com/AGTimFox/photos/a.1516385568373441/3609526662392644/)

Congratulations to former Montana Solicitor General Lawrence VanDyke on his confirmation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals!

---