LYNNWOOD—Attorneys with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on Monday, August 10, asked the United State Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld Washington state’s enforcement of its public-accommodations law against Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean women-only spa in Lynnwood and Tacoma, requiring transgender women into its facilities.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in Olympus Spa v. Armstrong challenges the application of the Washington Law Against Discrimination to the spa’s longstanding anatomy-based entry policy.
Olympus Spa, located on 196th Street near the Lynnwood Event Center, owned by Sun Lee and his family, operates as a jjimjilbang offering communal steam rooms, warm soaking pools and the traditional full-body scrub known as seshin, performed by female employees called ddemiri in open areas where all patrons are fully nude. Nudity is central to the services, rooted in centuries of Korean cultural tradition dating to the Choson dynasty. The owners, who are Korean Christians, maintain that men and women should not be unclothed together unless married. The policy admits only those without male genitalia, including post-operative transgender women, while excluding pre-operative persons—prior to any court ruling, transgender women were only admitted at Olympus Spa if they have undergone post-operative sex confirmation surgery.
“It is an abuse and perversion of the public accommodation laws to give biological males access to the intimate spaces of unconsenting females in a state of full or partial undress. No woman or girl should have to give up her right to bodily privacy and safety to avoid offending a man. That’s wrong, and it puts women and girls in harm’s way,” said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider.
John J. Bursch, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy, said: “Based on a single complaint by a male who may never even have visited the spa, Washington state decided its views on gender identity must override a centuries-old cultural practice and deep religious conviction, turning its enforcement power against a Korean family’s small business. The Lee family was living the American dream while staying true to their Korean heritage and Christian values. Now, the state is turning their lives into a nightmare, insisting they compromise not only their deeply held religious beliefs but also the privacy and safety of women and girls as young as 13 who visit the spa. The First Amendment forbids all that, which is why we’re urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Lee family’s case.”
The petition presents two questions: whether applying Washington’s law again discrimination to force a Christian, all-female jjimjilbang to admit biological males violates the Free Exercise Clause under Tandon v. Newsom and Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, or associational freedom under Boy Scouts of America v. Dale; and whether a policy that differentiates based on anatomy discriminates “based on gender identity or transgender status,” citing West Virginia v. B.P.J. and United States v. Skrmetti.
The petition argues that the Washington Law Against Discrimination is not generally applicable because it exempts distinctly private institutes, clubs and places of accommodation, as well as certain religious educational facilities, cemeteries and related institutions. Private clubs or an Asian-interest sorority operating the same facility could maintain the exact policy without liability. Also, the religious exemptions, the petition contends, create denominational preferences forbidden by Catholic Charities.
The spa qualifies as an expressive association transmitting Korean cultural and religious values of spiritual renewal and sex-separated modesty, akin to the Boy Scouts in Dale, spa lawyers argue. Forced inclusion of males with male genitalia would significantly impair that mission. They further argue that the anatomy-based classification is not discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status under recent Supreme Court precedent.
Respondents have 30 days from docketing to file a brief in opposition, placing a response roughly due in early to mid-September 2026 unless extended or waived. The petition would then be distributed for consideration at one of the justices’ private conferences, typically held on Fridays during the term. Summer-filed petitions often reach the long conference at the start of the October Term.
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether to grant certiorari could come in late fall or early winter 2026, potentially November or December — at least four justices must vote to grant review.
If the Court grants the petition, briefing on the merits would follow, with the petitioners’ brief due 45 days after the grant order. Oral argument would likely be scheduled during the 2026-27 term, between October 2026 and April 2027, most probably in February or March 2027 for a case of this timing. A decision would be expected by the end of the term in late June 2027. If denied, the Ninth Circuit ruling stands and the spa remains subject to the state enforcement.
Olympus Spa’s legal battle
Sun Lee, is a first-generation Korean American whose parents fled Korea seeking greater religious freedom, shared with the Lynnwood Times back in 2023 that the spa’s mission restores women’s physical and spiritual health through authentic Korean customs.
“The tradition has existed for about 500 years from Korean ancestry,” Lee said. “Where women, particularly women, go through a traditional, ceremonial, act of cleansing and the person has to be naked.”
Girls as young as 13 visit for seshin and the facilities. The owners hire only female employees and assert that mixing sexes would transform the cultural practice and violate their faith. Lee has stated that the Korean body scrub has always been served by the same gender over hundreds of years and that a service provider never serves an opposite-sex customer.
The dispute began in January 2020 when Haven Wilvich, a transgender woman who had not undergone bottom surgery and retained male genitalia, inquired by phone about attending a women’s group event at the spa. She was allegedly told that “transgender women without surgery were not welcome because it could make other customers and staff uncomfortable.” Wilvich never visited the spa in person.
Having felt discriminated against by this dismissal, Haven told the Lynnwood Times back in 2023, she filed a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) in February 2020, alleging discrimination based on gender identity.
“It felt really terrible to be invited to an event and find out I can’t attend because the spa is willing to reduce me to my genitalia and not see me as the woman that I am,” Wilvich told the Lynnwood Times back in 2023.
The spa found no record of any visit or interaction by the complainant. Wilvich later underwent vaginoplasty on August 3, 2020, to create a vagina.
“I’m now the proud owner of a brand spanking new neovagina,” Wilvich wrote on her blog post titled, “V Day.”
WSHRC investigator Madison Imiola notified the spa and concluded that its “biological women” policy violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on sexual orientation, defined to include gender expression or identity. The commission threatened referral to then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson for prosecution and gave the spa 10 days to change its policies or face closure.
Lee remained firm to his beliefs stating he “firmly believe it is essential for the safety, legal protection, and well-being of our customers and employees that we maintain adherence to this adaptation of a female-only rule” adding they feared exposing female customers to male genitalia, especially minors, could result in criminal penalties under the state’s laws on lewd conduct.
He has cited prior incidents in which males entered the facility dressed as women, undressed in the locker room and entered the pool area, leaving customers in shock, fear, humiliation, trauma and rage. Some patrons demanded refunds and vowed never to return. Employees have stated they will not perform massages or body scrubs on naked biological men. Lee argued at the time that the spa’s policy protected privacy, safety and legal compliance under lewd-conduct laws while preserving cultural heritage that would otherwise be lost.
Lee eventually signed a settlement agreement under protest that reserved the right to challenge the law, agreeing to revise the policy language and undergo training.
In March 2022, Olympus Spa, Lee and his wife, a patron, and employees sued Andreta Armstrong, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, and the commission’s investigator, Imiola, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. They alleged violations of First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein dismissed the complaint with leave to amend in June 2023 and later dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice in November 2023, holding that the First Amendment did not protect the policy under the state law.
A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the lower court’s ruling on May 29, 2025. Judges M. Margaret McKeown and Ronald M. Gould, writing for the majority, held that the Human Rights Commission’s enforcement was a straightforward application of the Washington Law Against Discrimination and did not abridge the spa’s rights to free speech, free exercise or free association. The statute was neutral and generally applicable, imposing only incidental burdens. The spa was neither an intimate nor expressive association because it is a for-profit business offering services for payment without stable membership.
“The HRC’s enforcement action against Olympus Spa was a straightforward application of Washington’s statutory scheme—WLAD—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender expression or identity in places of public accommodation. As applied, the statute does not abridge the Spa’s rights to free speech, free exercise, or free association. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint,” the court opinion states.
Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee, who is South Korean-born, dissented with the court’s opinion stating:
“Korean spas are not like spas at the Four Seasons or Ritz Carlton with their soothing ambient music and lavender aroma in private lounges. Steeped in centuries-old tradition, Korean spas require their patrons to be fully naked, as they sit in communal saunas and undergo deep-tissue scrubbing of their entire bodies in an open area filled with other unclothed patrons.
“Given this intimate environment, Korean spas separate patrons as well as employees by their sex…Now, under edict from the state, women—and even girls as young as 13 years old—must be nude alongside patrons with exposed male genitalia as they receive treatment…This is not what Washington state law requires. While the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) forbids discrimination based on (among other things) sex and sexual orientation, its text and structure make clear that it does not cover transgender status. Washington has perversely distorted a law that was enacted to safeguard women’s rights to strip women of protections. The women and girls of Washington state deserve better.”
Olympus Spa then sought a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. On March 12, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion and denied both requests over dissents from five judges.
Judge M. Margaret McKeown in her majority opinion argued that Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination based on gender identity as part of sexual orientation and that the Spa did not challenge the statute’s text or applicability.
“The Spa does not dispute that WLAD’s proscription of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation…. WLAD prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, which expressly includes ‘gender expression or identity,’ including having a particular ‘gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression.’ Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.040(29),” Judge McKeown wrote denying the panel rehearing.
Adding, “The Spa’s entrance policy denies entry to preoperative transgender women whose ‘gender identity’ or ‘appearance,’ as defined in WLAD, differ from the physical traits associated with postoperative or cisgender women. The statutory language is undoubtedly expansive, and its definition of sexual orientation is bespoke. But it is also unambiguous, and it applies to the Spa’s entrance policy.”
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, dissenting from the denial of en banc review, described the case as one about “swinging dicks” and argued the law is underinclusive because of exemptions for private clubs and certain religious institutions, triggering strict scrutiny that the state cannot satisfy.
“The Christian owners of Olympus Spa— a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don’t want them [dicks] in their spa,” Judge Van Dyke wrote. “Their female employees and female clients don’t want them [dicks] in their spa either. But Washington State insists on them [dicks]. And now so does the Ninth Circuit.”
He continued, “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. Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds. Woke regulators and complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls.”
Judge Van Dyke argued that because WLAD gives exemption to private clubs, “WLAD is not generally applicable [in the Olympus Spa case], and we should have subjected WLAD’s application in this case to strict scrutiny, a standard it cannot survive.”
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay and others joined related concerns. Judge Daniel P. Collins dissented on the ground that the policy does not discriminate based on gender identity at all, since the spa cares only about the presence of male genitalia and treats biological women and post-operative transgender women equally regardless of orientation.
Pacific Justice Institute attorney Tracy Tribbett told the Lynnwood Times after the March 2026 denial: “Based on our initial review of the seven separate opinions, we are optimistic that the Supreme Court will take an interest in the petition for review.”
Olympus Spa and Trans rights supporters face off at Event Center
Local reaction included a June 17, 2023, rally at the Lynnwood Event Center organized by Sovereign Women Speak in support of the spa. Nearly 100 demonstrators gathered with signs reading “Save women spaces” and similar messages, while about 75 counter-protesters held opposing signs. Police from multiple agencies maintained a significant presence; no violence occurred.
April Morrow, founder of the group, said the state was mandating that men be allowed inside women’s space and that female employees would have to choose between quitting or providing body scrubs to naked men.
“My mother, my aunt, my sisters, my daughters, my nieces, my women friends—we have been enjoying the Olympus Spa for almost three decades,” said Morrow. “And now, the State of Washington is mandating that we allow men inside our women’s space.”
State Rep. Jim Walsh and former Lynnwood City Council member Jim Smith also spoke at the rally.
“What we are here for is what is good,” Representative Walsh said addressing the crowd. “We want to support Olympus Spa, and what we want to support is something that our state constitution recognizes in Article 1, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution. The problem with this court decision against Olympus Spa is that the court is trying to force someone else’s beliefs on the spa and the family that runs this business. That is unconstitutional, immoral, and illegal. Although this decision currently favors one group, it must ultimately be overturned.”
A separate controversy arose involving Public Facilities District board member Vivian Dong over her support for the rally.
The Lynnwood Public Facilities District (otherwise known as The District) unanimously approved a vote of no confidence in July 2023 of its newest, and only Asian American member, Vivian Dong, for her support of Olympus Spa.
“Personally, I wasn’t really prepared. I felt ambushed, set up and possibly discriminated against,” Vivian Dong told the Lynnwood Times. “It’s been a shock, a total shock.”
As part of that vote, which was originally phrased as removing Dong from her position, something the Board may not have the authority to do, became a recommendation of her resignation. Dong declined to do so.
During Tuesday’s meeting Janet Pope, Executive Director for the District, passed a note to Board Chair Mike Miller, after realizing the Lynnwood Times was covering the meeting. The note read: “The Lynnwood Times is here. You are free to say no to any interviews. You might want to adjourn before Jim speaks.”
Lynnwood City Councilman Jim Smith, council liaison for the PFD Board, was not granted the opportunity to discuss the matter regarding Vivian Dong nor was he allowed to ask any questions regarding the vote. In the meeting’s agenda the last 15 minutes were allotted for comments by Councilman Smith but the meeting abruptly ended before this could take place.
After Board Chair Mike Miller read the accusations against Dong, the motion of no confidence against her was introduced by Miller and without objection and no discussion, the motion passed 4-0, with Vivian Dong muted on Zoom and unable to vote.
When asked why Dong’s audio was muted prior to the motion and vote, Miller told the Lynnwood Times that Dong was “rambling” about the statement he publicly read. According to the video, Dong immediately refuted the accusations by Miller against her for approximately three-and-a-half minutes, at which time, Miller stated to the Lynnwood Times, he told Josh Cain to mute her audio.
The District’s Board declined the Lynnwood Times’ request for further comment on their decision at the time.
Pope cited Dong’s “promotion” of the rally on her social media as a cause of her no confidence vote — a rally which the District alleges costed businesses approximately $35,000 in lost revenue and the District approximately $10,000 to $12,500 in protest management. The District never reached out to Dong requesting she remove her social media post.
Pope also claimed the decision to close businesses was the Lynnwood PD’s recommendation during a sit-down interview with Journalist Jonathan Choe, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, in a collaboration with the Lynnwood Times.
However, the Lynnwood PD confirmed this was not the case.
“Lynnwood Police was not involved in any recommendation to close those businesses in the area. Janet Pope is the one who managed that, not LPD,” Maren McKay, Lynnwood Police Department’s Public Affairs and Communications Manager, told the Lynnwood Times at that time.
Leading up into the rally Dong sent an email to Matt Hendricks, PFD’s attorney, on June 13, asking if she could attend to show her support “both as an Asian woman as well as the PFD board member to support our key tenant.”
She received a response from Janet Pope that same day stating “you are certainly allowed to attend and have your own free speech, just not representing the PFD.”
Two days later, on June 15, Pope then wrote in an email: “Based on the recommendations from the Lynnwood Police and the JLL Risk Management team who has international experience with this, they are asking that no staff or board members other than our emergency operations team be on site, so that limited resources can be spent on preventing incidents.
The Lynnwood Police Department confirmed with the Lynnwood Times they never made recommendations for staff or board members to not be on-site.
Dong was not re-appointed to the PFD Board in 2023.
RELEATED ARTICLES
- Lynnwood’s Olympus Spa heading to US Supreme Court after Ninth Circuit denies rehearing of case
- Ninth Circuit sides with state in Olympus Spa transgender lawsuit
- WDI submits amicus brief to Court of Appeals in defense of Olympus Spa
- Olympus Spa and Trans rights supporters face off at Event Center
- An exclusive: Olympus Spa attorney speaks on transgender policy complaint
- The District accuses fellow board member of planning spa protest
- Judge rules female-only Lynnwood spa must allow pre-op transwomen
