EPP Seeking Amicus Brief Counsel in Olympus (WA) Female-Only Spa Case
Hoping SCOTUS will agree to hear the case involving an all-female spa that excluded males from female communal nude spaces.
Does an all-female spa need to permit men to enter nude communal spaces because they are “trans”? That’s the issue we want SCOTUS to take on.
The Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org) not only has filed civil rights challenges to over 275 institutions covering over 800 programs and scholarships, it also has file 19 Amicus Briefs. We have another Amicus project in a really important case you probably remember from news reports.
- Washington Women-Only Naked Spa Forced to Accept Pre-Operation Trans Customers
- Appeals Judges Upset By “Crude” Dissent Mocking Majority For Permitting Naked Men In Women-Only Nude Spa
We are hoping to convince SCOTUS to take the case. Because we are so busy we need outside legal assistance – preferably pro bono.
Here are the details:
The Equal Protection Project would like to retain an attorney to prepare an amicus brief in support of Pacific Justice Institute’s client; Olympus Spa, in its their Petition for Certiorari. A short description of the matter follows. Pro Bono representation is particularly appreciated.
If you have an interest please contact us here.
Thank you in advance.
Case Name: Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, Dir. of WA Human Rights Comm.
Court: U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Certiorari
Supreme Court Docket link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/ public/25A1111.html
Expected Deadline: August 10, 2026 (notice of intent to file due 10 days prior)A spa near Seattle provides an intimate Korean experience for women in communal bath houses and sauna areas. Patrons must be fully nude as they receive traditional treatments, which include full body scrubs. Those seeking this experience include girls as young as 13 who arrive with their mothers. Because of cultural sensitivities, religious convictions, and safety—which common sense requires—the owners operate the spa as an exclusively female venue. A biological male identifying as a transgender woman was denied access to the spa and thus filed a complaint with the Washington Human Rights Commission for discrimination. An investigator for the Commission determined that the spa operates in violation of the State’s public accommodation law due to the exclusion of men who identify as transgender women.
Based on Washington’s public accommodation law, the Commission’s investigator determined that the female-only rule violated state law. The investigator required the Spa to change its entry policy, undergo training, and change the “biological women” language on its website. Failure to do so would result in referral for prosecution. The Spa found itself on the horns of a dilemma. If it did not comply with the public accommodation law, it would face punitive administrative fines and prosecution. But if it complied with the law, it would violate its religious beliefs and face financial ruin because its female patrons would flee from its business. Because of this the Spa entered into a settlement agreement with the Commission but inserted language that it could challenge the law. The Spa filed suit in federal court on three First Amendment claims: Free Exercise of Religion, Association, and Free Speech. The District court and the 9th Circuit panel found for the Defendant Commission. En Banc consideration was denied.
Reminder: we are a small organization going up against powerful and wealthy government and private institutions devoted to DEI discrimination. Donations are greatly needed and appreciated.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hopefully VanDyke’s dissent rules the day in the end. It was glorious and got to the heart of the matter.
The spa should retain a surgeon to perform some much needed remodeling.
All it took was one Democrat freak to show up……
Try and get Brandi Kruz or Jason Rantz to get an episode on this for visibility. Locals who have had enough should be getting out their wallets to fight.
Biological males co splaying as females should never in a million years have ever got this much play. I will never understand how this insanity got this far, with the exception of weak willed people that were simply to cowardly to step up in the first place when this insanity first reared it’s ugly head to say a simple and emphatic ‘NO’.
What’s crazy to me is that a First Amendment claim — as opposed to a general right, grounded in societal moral probity and common sense — must be asserted, in order to argue that girls and women should be able to be free from the predatory gazes, ogling, threat of unwanted physical contact and actual physical contact/sexual assault of misogynistic, predatory and obnoxious male tranny predators.
Where is there a “general right grounded in societal moral probity” let alone a right to common sense in the Constitution?
Mind you, I agree with you that this situation is ridiculous. But if they’re going to try and have SCOTUS decide the constitutionality of a law then they’re going to need a constitutional right to tie it to.
Sometimes we just need to administer a good old fashioned beat-down.
Expert Witness!?
Where is the “No penises or testicles beyond this point! Entry is consent for removal.” sign?