A Korean-style spa in Washington state has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the state government's mandate requiring the spa to admit transgender women. The spa argues that the ruling violates the owners' religious freedom and freedom of association.

According to court documents, Olympus Spa, a family-operated Korean bathhouse, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on August 10.

The spa, where customers are required to be completely nude in communal areas, has restricted entry to biological females for over 20 years, citing Korean cultural traditions and the Christian owners' religious beliefs regarding modesty between the sexes.

The case originated from a complaint filed with the Washington State Human Rights Commission in 2020 by a transgender woman who claimed she was denied entry.

The commission determined that the spa’s "biological females only" policy violated state anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression in public accommodations.

Facing the possibility of prosecution, the spa owners signed a settlement agreement in which they agreed to change their policy while reserving their right to challenge the law in court.

A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit filed by the spa, and a split panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Subsequently, the full appeals court denied a request for a rehearing, with five judges dissenting.

The petition argues that Washington state law is not "generally applicable" because it exempts private clubs and certain religious organizations from anti-discrimination requirements while still applying them to the spa. The petitioners contend that this subjects the law to strict scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.

Furthermore, the petition asserts that the 9th Circuit unfairly denied the spa’s First Amendment protections regarding freedom of association by ruling that for-profit service businesses cannot be recognized as organizations entitled to free association, a decision the petitioners claim conflicts with rulings on similar arguments by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Separately, the petition argues that the spa’s admission policy does not violate state law at all, as it is based on anatomy rather than gender identity. They cite the 2025 U.S. v. Skrmetti ruling and the 2026 West Virginia v. BPJ ruling, which distinguish between classifications based on sex and discrimination based on gender identity.

The petition is supported by the Pacific Justice Institute and the Alliance Defending Freedom, both of which are representing the spa owners, Myung-un Lee and Sun Lee, as well as one anonymous customer and three anonymous employees.

The respondents are Andreta Armstrong, Executive Director of the Washington State Human Rights Commission, and Madison Imiola, a commission investigator.

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will hear the case.

NNP USA = CEO & Lead Reporter Sung-Goo Hong / Exclusive Partnership NNP info@newsandpost.com