A women-only Korean spa in Washington has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the state's anti-discrimination law can be applied to its nude communal spaces, renewing a legal fight that has drawn national attention to questions about gender identity, public accommodations and religious liberties.
Background of the dispute
The dispute began in 2020 when a transgender woman complained to Washington state authorities that the spa had denied her entry. State officials concluded the spa's policy violated the state's protections against discrimination based on gender identity. The spa, operating under the name Olympus Spa, has argued that applying Washington’s public accommodation law to its nude communal areas violates the Christian owners’ First Amendment rights.
Last year a federal appeals court ruled against the spa. In March, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case, drawing broader attention after Judge Lawrence VanDyke issued a pointed dissent that included the line, "This is a case about swinging dicks."
Supreme Court action
The Supreme Court formally added Olympus Spa’s petition to its docket last week. That procedural step does not mean the justices will take the case, only that they will consider whether to hear the appeal. If the court agrees to hear it, the case could set a nationwide precedent on how anti-discrimination laws apply to intimate, gender-segregated spaces.
"Washington's public accommodation law has been weaponized against women and teenage girls who wish to be left alone in their intimate spaces," Olympus Spa attorney Kevin Snider told Axios.
What the case could decide
The questions before the court, if it takes the case, would likely include whether a business that operates segregated, nude communal facilities for women may lawfully exclude transgender women who have not undergone gender-confirmation surgery; and whether requiring admission in such circumstances compels religious expression or violates free speech rights for the owners.
Legal observers say the case touches on several broad themes:
- How far state public accommodation statutes reach into gender-segregated, intimate settings.
- Whether owners’ religious beliefs can exempt them from generally applicable anti-discrimination rules.
- How courts balance privacy interests of cisgender women and girls with the civil rights of transgender people.
Recent procedural history
Key dates and rulings in the case are as follows:
| Year | Action |
|---|---|
| 2020 | Complaint filed after a transgender woman was denied entry |
| 2025–2026 | Federal appeals court ruled against the spa; 9th Circuit denied rehearing |
| 2026 | Supreme Court added the petition to its docket for potential review |
Why this matters to Washington residents
Washington’s public accommodation law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in places open to the public. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the spa could narrow the scope of state anti-discrimination protections in intimate, gender-segregated contexts across the country. Conversely, a ruling against the spa would affirm states’ authority to enforce anti-discrimination statutes in such settings.
For community members, the case raises practical questions about access to single-sex facilities — including spas, locker rooms and shelters — and how businesses may structure policies to address both privacy and nondiscrimination obligations.
What to watch next
The Supreme Court will decide whether to grant review in the coming weeks. If it accepts the case, briefing and argument would follow on a schedule set by the court. Should the court decline, the lower-court rulings will stand, leaving Washington’s enforcement of its public accommodation law intact in this matter.
The outcome, either way, could have ripple effects beyond Washington, shaping how states and businesses reconcile competing claims of privacy, religious liberty and anti-discrimination protections.
Grace Yun, State Correspondent
