Equal Protection Project Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Support of Olympus (WA) Women’s Health Spa

Equal Protection Project Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Support of Olympus (WA) Women’s Health Spa

On September 30, 2026, the Equal Protection Project (EPP) filed an amicus curia (“friend of the court”) brief at the United States Supreme Court in Olympus Spa v. Andreta Armstrong, Executive Director of the Washington State Human Rights Commission et al. EPP’s Brief was prepared pro bono by Ronald E. Cahill, Esq. of Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Boston. We extend our thanks.

This case concerns whether a state public accommodation law overrides the First Amendment liberty interests of a culturally based women’s spa, its female employees, and unclothed women and girls as young as thirteen years old in their intimate spaces.

Just outside of Seattle, an immigrant Korean family operates a traditional women’s spa, called Olympus Spa. Korean spas provide services incorporating hundreds of years of cultural tradition going back to the Chosŏn Dynasty (1392– 1910). The mission of the Spa is to restore and rejuvenate women’s physical and spiritual health. Of importance here, the treatments include massages and full-body scrubs in communal bathhouses and steam rooms. Patrons—as young as thirteen years old—must be fully naked. Thus, all employees are female, and males are not allowed on the premises. The Spa’s website reads, “Biological women are welcome.” In addition to maintaining an authentic, traditional Korean experience, the owners are Christians who hold the theologically conservative view that men and women should not be in each other’s presence while undressed unless married to one another.

A transgender woman (a biological male) was denied entry and use of the facilities. A complaint against the Spa alleging violation of a state public accommodation law was filed with the Washington Human Rights Commission. The Commission found the Spa to be in violation. The Spa sued in Federal Court alleging various First Amendment violations but was unsuccessful. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and En Banc review was denied with 4 dissents.

EPP’s brief in support of the Spa argued that the Spa’s admission policy constitutes expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The Spa’s mission is to provide traditional Korean body services exclusively to women, rooted in culture, traditional religious beliefs concerning womanhood, bodily integrity and the sacred space created for women in the Korean spa tradition. The Spa’s selection of who may enter its intimate environment is inseparable from the message it conveys. The dissemination of culture falls squarely within the contours of First Amendment expression, and it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958).

Here is a portion of our Summary of the Argument:

The spa’s mission—to provide traditional Korean body services exclusively to women, rooted in cultural, traditional, and religious beliefs about the female body—communicates a specific message about the nature of womanhood, bodily integrity, and the sacred space created for women in the Korean spa tradition. The spa’s selection of who may enter its intimate, nude service environment is inseparable from the message it conveys.

Lastly, we argued that the question presented here is not confined to Korean spas.  Across the country, women’s shelters, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centers, athletic facilities, communal locker rooms, bridal salons, religious retreats, sororities, and similar sex-separated spaces all communicate—through their admissions policies and the environments they maintain—a message about the nature of womanhood, bodily privacy, and female solidarity. As state and local governments continue to expand gender-identity mandates through public accommodations laws, each of these spaces will face the same compelled-speech dilemma that the Spa faced here: either publish the government’s affirmation that sex-based distinctions that sex-based distinctions are impermissible, or face enforcement and penalty.

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.

Maureen Riordan is Chief Counsel at the Equal Protection Project, and focuses, among things, on filing civil rights complaints against DEI discrimination.

=======================

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.