Judge Hits ‘Wackadoo’ Ninth Circuit on Deportation Case Review

Judge Lawrence VanDyke took issue with the Ninth Circuit’s practice of granting stays in immigration cases in an opinion that referenced a “Circuit of Wackadoo.”

VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee on the San Francisco-based federal appeals court, on Feb. 20 dissented from the en banc court reviewing a denial of a stay of deportation proceedings for a Peruvian family while their case is heard by the circuit.

VanDyke wrote that in his imaginary “Wackadoo” circuit, “The attorneys are all wise, the judges are all zealous, and the law clerks are all above average. Everything is enlightened and efficient. But alas, there is one thing amiss in Wackadoo: the judges are simply too busy.”

As part of their handling of the massive caseload, the judges “adopted a convenient, but unwritten, practice” of granting any form of preliminary relief in the form of an administrative stay pending review, VanDyke said. That stay remained in place until the judges ruled on the merits of the case.

The judge said that the “Circuit of Wackadoo” isn’t the Ninth Circuit, because they don’t grant preliminary relief in all cases. “That would be crazy. We only do so in immigration cases,” VanDyke said.

VanDyke said the grants and extensions on stays of deportation “disregard Supreme Court precedent and award automatic, extended stays of removal in utterly meritless immigration appeals.”

In the underlying case—which VanDyke was part of the ruling panel—the circuit granted the petitioners an automatic stay that was in place for 10 months before a judge weighed in on the substance of the motion, he said. The panel denied the stay, and found that future stay requests should be considered by motions panels.

VanDyke said the full court is motivated to keep its earlier practices in place, and that by vacating the panel ruling, automatic stays will continue to be granted. Those “manifestly unlawful stay procedures” lead to the huge number of cases that the court uses to justify keeping the practices, he said. “Evidently, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue sounds something like a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity,” VanDyke wrote.

The judge provided an example of that dialogue: “We are … (‘You get a stay!’) … sincerely shocked … (‘You get a stay!’) … by the … (‘You get a stay!’) … number of … (‘You get a stay!’) … utterly … (‘You get a stay!’) … meritless … (‘You get a stay!’) … immigration petitions … (‘You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!’) … that are filed … (‘You get a stay!’) … in our court. (‘Everyone gets a stay!’).”

En banc arguments will be heard the week of March 23, according to a court order.

VanDyke is known for his dissents, which sometimes pointedly take issue with his fellow judges on the Ninth Circuit. Last year he issued a “video dissent” in a gun case, demonstrating in his judicial chambers how different handguns operate.

The case is Rojas-Espinoza, et al. v. Bondi, 9th Cir. en banc, No. 24-7536, en banc rehearing granted 2/20/26.