Supreme Court

Will the Supreme Court Hear the 'Case About Swinging Dicks'?

Olympus Spa—an all-female, nude establishment in Washington state—sued after the government said it had broken the law by refusing to accept a preoperative transgender woman. But the case is more complicated than it looks.

Billy Binion | 9.6.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Olympus Spa in Washington state (Alliance Defending Freedom)

"This is a case about swinging dicks," wrote Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in March. "You may think that swinging dicks shouldn't appear in a judicial opinion. You're not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa—some as young as thirteen—to be visually assaulted by the real thing."

VanDyke was dissenting from the 9th Circuit's decision not to revisit Olympus v. Armstrong, a case that saw an all-female Korean spa sue on First Amendment grounds. The business, according to the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), had broken the law when it declined to accept a preoperative transgender woman. This was a problem for Olympus Spa, which requires nudity in its pool area, and whose business model, relatedly, hinges on catering to a single-sex clientele.

In ruling against the business last year, the 9th Circuit acknowledged the thorniness of the case. "We are not unmindful of the concerns and beliefs raised by the Spa," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown. "Indeed, the Spa may have other avenues to challenge the enforcement action. But whatever recourse it may have, that relief cannot come from the First Amendment."

Olympus Spa is now taking its case to the Supreme Court. McKeown and VanDyke, whose vulgar approach elicited a rebuke from 27 of his colleagues, may appear irreconcilably at odds. In some sense, they are. Yet the rival sensibilities also help paint a more complete picture of a complicated case, one that naturally provokes strong reactions but for which there may be no immediately satisfying answer under the Constitution.

The ordeal traces back to 2020. Haven........

© Reason.com