“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
In dissenting in a case concerning discrimination based on gender identity, Trump judge Lawrence VanDyke used harsh and vulgar language that drew widespread criticism across the ideological spectrum.
What has happened in this case?
Washington state’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) filed a complaint against a spa for violating state law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of gender identity by permitting only “biological women” and excluding transgender women who have not received gender confirmation surgery. The case was resolved but the spa brought a First Amendment lawsuit against HRC, contending that HRC’s action violated freedom of speech, association, and religion.
A district court dismissed the case as a matter of law and the spa appealed. Clinton judges Margaret McKewon and Ronald Gould affirmed, while Trump judge Kenneth Lee dissented. A request for full court rehearing was denied, with five Trump judges –VanDyke, Tung, Nelson, Bumatay, and Collins – dissenting. The March 2026 case is Olympus Spa v. Armstrong.
VanDyke, however, wrote a solo dissent that no one joined and that received widespread bipartisan criticism. “This is a case,” his dissent began, “about swinging dicks.” He went on for 31 pages to claim that the majority opinion “tramples” on First Amendment rights, using what he admitted was “coarse and ugly words.”
Significant widespread criticism followed. 26 judges joined Judge McKeown in criticizing the dissent for “vulgar barroom talk” that could undermine confidence in the courts. Trump judge Danielle Forrest, along with Obama nominee John Owens, were more succinct. “We are better than this” they wrote. Conservative columnist David French called it “a court opinion as a 4chan post … that brings thunderous applause from the angry right but communicates nothing but scorn and contempt for the opposition.” As one commentator noted, Van Dyke’s dissent shows that the ABA’s assessment of him as “arrogant, lazy” an “Ideologue” and “not qualified” was “entirely correct.”
Why is this decision important?
This case illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench. It shows the serious problems with William Van Dyke as a life-time court of appeals judge or more.