WASHINGTON STATE — A dispute over who may enter a women-only, clothing-optional spa has escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Olympus Spa is asking the justices to overturn lower-court decisions and permit its policy restricting access to people who are women.
The case centers on Olympus Spa’s facilities in Lynnwood and Tacoma, which offer traditional Korean body scrubs, open soaking pools and steam rooms. The spa’s policy is built around an all-nude female clientele, according to attorneys representing the business. Olympus Spa’s challenge comes after a complaint was lodged with the Washington State Human Rights Commission in 2020 by a transgender woman who said the spa denied her services and told her transgender women who had not undergone gender-conforming surgery were not welcome, asserting the restriction was intended to prevent discomfort for other customers and staff.
In materials presented to the high court, lead attorney John Bursch—described in reporting as representing Olympus Spa through the Alliance Defending Freedom—said the petition asks the Supreme Court to review the case and uphold the spa’s approach. Bursch argued that the spa should not be required to admit a male into its nude sauna area merely because he identifies as a woman. The position, as framed by the petition, is that the spa’s women-only, nude environment is a category the business has the right to define and maintain under its own stated policy goals.
The dispute, once tied to administrative and civil proceedings in Washington, moved through the federal court system after Olympus Spa appealed an earlier outcome that did not favor the company. As the controversy has progressed, the legal fight has sharpened over constitutional claims—particularly the spa’s contention that its First Amendment rights were implicated by a requirement that it open its nude women-only spaces to transgender women.
According to reporting summarized in the petition coverage, Olympus Spa’s appeal was rejected by judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, with the decision described as intensely divided. The spa and its legal team characterized the refusal as a “constitutionally intolerable outcome,” arguing that the case presented an urgent issue requiring Supreme Court review.
In seeking intervention from the nation’s top court, Olympus Spa’s petition points to related Supreme Court rulings that the spa’s supporters view as relevant to its argument. Coverage of the filing notes that the spa’s petition cites the Supreme Court’s approval of Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors in the so-called Skrmetti case. It also references a more recent June ruling involving state bans on transgender women and girls participating on preferred sports teams, which the spa’s lawyers cite as indicators of how the Court may treat policies that distinguish on sex-based lines.
The petition’s central framing remains focused on the spa’s entrance rule for nude areas. In the account of the filing, Bursch told reporters that the request to the Supreme Court is for the Court to “review this case on behalf of” Olympus Spa and to hold that a spa with an all-nude female clientele does not have to admit a male into its nude sauna area solely because of self-identified gender. That argument is presented as a matter of the spa’s asserted rights and the nature of a women-only, nude environment.
Legal observers and advocates have long treated disputes like this as part of a broader national conversation about how laws governing sex-based discrimination apply when institutions maintain sex-restricted spaces while individuals’ gender identity does not match the sex assigned at birth. In this case, the underlying complaint that triggered the dispute—filed after the spa allegedly denied services to a transgender woman—set the stage for competing interpretations of anti-discrimination obligations and constitutional protections.
After the 9th Circuit upheld an earlier decision adverse to the spa, Olympus Spa filed its petition to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to take up the question and resolve it definitively. The petition’s request is positioned as a direct effort to reverse the 9th Circuit ruling and establish a controlling interpretation that would allow the spa to continue operating with its women-only, nude policy.
The controversy is not limited to a single location. Reporting indicates Olympus Spa operates across two Washington locations—Lynnwood and Tacoma—each featuring the mix of services that define its experience: Korean body scrubs, open soaking pools and steam rooms. The policy at issue, and the outcome of the appeal, could therefore affect how similar facilities manage access to sex-segregated and nude spaces in states across the country should the Supreme Court accept and rule on the dispute.
As of the filing described in the coverage, the case is now in the Supreme Court’s docket pipeline. The Court’s decision whether to grant review will determine whether the justices will weigh the constitutional issues at the heart of the dispute, including the spa’s claimed First Amendment rights and the legal standards that govern discrimination and access. For now, Olympus Spa’s effort—represented by Bursch and allied counsel—marks a significant escalation in a fight that began with an individual complaint and has now reached the highest court in the United States.
For readers following the case, earlier reporting details both the petition’s request and the company’s rationale, describing the move from the 9th Circuit to the Supreme Court and emphasizing the spa’s argument that it should not be compelled to open nude women-only areas to a person described by its challengers as male. News Source and additional coverage of the petition’s cited precedents and origins trace the case’s development from the Human Rights Commission complaint through the appeals decision. News Source
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
