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.

[12] 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.

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.

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?

[20] 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.

[23] 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.

"[35][36] 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."

"[37] 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.

[38] 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.

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.

"[39] VanDyke held in a court case that beauty pageant companies may exclude trans women as part of their freedom of speech rights.

[41] On November 13, 2023, the 9th circuit, en banc, voted 7–4 to temporarily block Idaho's abortion ban due to its lack of exceptions for medical emergencies.