The federal appeals court for the western United States has been drawn into a controversy after a single opinion used language many of its members found unacceptable. The dispute centers on Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, a challenge to Washington state’s anti-discrimination law brought by the owners of a traditional Korean women-only spa. The matter traces back to a complaint filed in 2026 by a transgender woman, and it has progressed through settlements and federal litigation before becoming a focal point for debates about public accommodations, religious liberty and courtroom decorum.
At the center of the uproar is Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a 2026 appointee of President Donald Trump, whose dissent from the court’s refusal to rehear the case included the line, “this is a case about swinging dicks.” That sentence prompted an unusually strong written rebuttal from nearly half the court. The case itself involves factual claims about the spa’s policy, allegations of misgendering and deadnaming, and questions about whether the owners’ religious convictions permit them to maintain women-only spaces excluding transgender women.
How the dispute reached the Ninth Circuit
The chronology begins when the complainant, identified in court filings as Haven Wilvich, filed a grievance in 2026 after being refused service at Olympus Spa. In 2026 the spa reached a settlement with a state human rights agency but reserved the right to pursue a constitutional challenge, which it filed in 2026. A federal district court dismissed the constitutional claims in 2026, ruling that Washington’s nondiscrimination rules apply broadly to businesses offering public services. A Ninth Circuit panel later affirmed in 2026, and when the full court declined to rehear the matter the stage was set for the contentious written responses that followed.
The dissent and the court’s reaction
Circuit Judge VanDyke authored a lead dissent when the en banc petition was denied, sharply criticizing the panel’s approach and framing the dispute as a clash between the spa owners’ asserted religious rights and state enforcement of civil rights laws. His opinion accused regulators and judges of being “woke” and described the presence of transgender women without bottom surgery as visually jarring to other patrons. The blunt rhetorical choice—”this is a case about swinging dicks“—is what provoked the broad backlash from colleagues who called the phrasing inappropriate for a judicial opinion.
Judicial rebukes and language of the response
Twenty-seven of the court’s 51 active judges attached a written response condemning the dissent as “vulgar barroom talk” that undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Senior Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who authored the panel opinion, called the language uncivil and noted that it distracted from the legal questions at issue. Other judges, both Republican and Democratic appointees, issued brief statements emphasizing that the bench should maintain dignity and refrain from personal invective. In a separate, longer rebuttal joined by several jurists, the court stressed the centrality of principles like equal treatment under state nondiscrimination statutes and the need for judicial discourse to reflect those principles.
Context, precedent and aftermath
This episode is not the first time Judge VanDyke has drawn attention for actions outside conventional judicial writing. Previously he released a video handling firearms to comment on a separate opinion about gun regulation, a move other judges criticized as blurring lines between adjudication and advocacy. The Olympus Spa matter is being advanced by attorneys from the Pacific Justice Institute, and parties have indicated an intent to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Observers note that litigation over access to sex-segregated spaces often combines claims under the First Amendment and state civil-rights regimes, producing both legal complexity and intense public reaction.
What the dispute signals about judicial norms
Beyond the particular legal issues, the incident highlights tensions about professional norms on appellate benches and how judges communicate controversial views. The broad, cross-ideological rebuke suggests that many jurists view crass rhetoric as damaging to institutional legitimacy. At the same time, dissents—sometimes sharp—are a routine part of appellate work, and the underlying legal arguments about religious liberty, the scope of public accommodations laws, and protections for transgender people will continue to be litigated. For now, the published opinions and responses form a public record that lawyers, advocates and courts will analyze as the case moves toward potential further appeal.