A federal judge minced no words in his dissenting opinion regarding the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' refusal on Thursday to rehear the case of a Christian-owned women's spa forced by Washington state into admitting men.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote, "This is a case about swinging d**ks."

''Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds.'

"The Christian owners of Olympus Spa — a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa — understandably don't want them in their spa," VanDyke continued. "Their female employees and female clients don't want them in their spa either. But Washington State insists on them. And now so does the Ninth Circuit."

The family-owned spa was accused of discrimination in 2020 for refusing access to a trans-identifying male whose penis was intact, and has been fighting an uphill legal battle ever since. In May, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled against the spa, holding that the First Amendment rights of its owners had not been violated by the state.

The spa subsequently petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a panel rehearing and/or a full-court rehearing of the case. Those were denied, prompting VanDyke to go nuclear:

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. Yet if harmful and unfortunate consequences were all this case was about, we’d have to shrug and say: "That’s what comes with living in a democracy." Unless the Constitution is implicated, we get what we voted for “good and hard."

But some fundamental rights, like the right to the free exercise of religion, are constitutionally protected precisely to avoid majoritarian infringement. Unfortunately, in this case the panel majority has allowed Washington State bureaucrats to trample on such rights long secured by the Constitution.

VanDyke tore apart his colleagues' reasoning, stating that:

• "[Washington Law Against Discrimination] is not generally applicable because it treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Olympus Spa's religiously motivated activity";
• "WLAD's application is not neutral because it facially differentiates among religions based on theological choices by granting an exemption to only a small set of favored religious activities"; and
• "WLAD's woke redefinition of 'sex' undermines the hard-fought legal protections granted to women as a class and undercuts established criminal laws against voyeurism and indecent exposure."

Some of the Trump judge's colleagues couldn't handle his criticism and frank language.

RELATED: WATCH: Talarico self-owns when he warns fascism will 'be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross'

Annie Wells/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Mary Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton who previously ruled against the spa, said in a statement that was joined by over 25 other Ninth Circuit judges that the American legal system is "not a place for vulgar barroom talk" or a "place to suggest that fellow judges have 'collectively lost their minds,' or that they are 'woke judges' 'complicit' in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans."

McKeown claimed that VanDyke's language — not her decisions — "undermines public trust in the courts."

VanDyke said in response to his colleagues' pearl-clutching:

My distressed colleagues appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun when it comes to mere unpleasant words in my opinion, yet exhibit the scruples of our dearly departed colleague Judge Reinhardt when it comes to the government trampling on religious liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia. That kind of selective outrage speaks for itself. The public deserves a court that is actually trustworthy. We should be earning that trust, not demanding it like petty tyrants.

"Sometimes 'dignified and civil' words are employed to mask a legal abomination. ... Sometimes coarse and ugly words bear the truth," VanDyke added.

Go deeper

The spa, owned by a theologically conservative Christian family, is modeled on jjimjilbang, sex-segregated bathhouses in Korea, and requires that guests be nude inside the pool area.

Court documents state the spa required that entrants "physically present in the nude as ... female," further noting, "Biological women are welcome." Under the rules, female-identifying males were welcome just so long as they had "gone through post-operative sex confirmation surgery." In other words, penises weren't permitted.

In 2020, Caleb Richmond — a trans-identifying male who was once married to a woman and now goes by Haven Wilvich — attempted to use the Washington Law Against Discrimination to gain access to the spa. The spa reportedly denied the man access, prompting him to file a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission.

When the WSHRC notified the spa that it had received a discrimination complaint, the spa asserted that its "biological women"-only policy was in keeping with state law and "essential for the safety, legal protection, and well-being of our customers and employees," court documents said.

'Washington has perversely distorted a law that was enacted to safeguard women's rights to strip women of protections.'

Although initially defiant, the spa signed a pre-finding settlement agreement requiring compliance with WLAD while reserving the right to mount a constitutional challenge.

Richmond reportedly boasted online that he had successfully found a way to legally invade the women's sanctuary. He wrote, "I did it," adding he got "the main naked lady spa in the area to change their policies and allow all self-identified women access regardless of surgery and genitals."

Richmond further suggested that he was "more woman" than any of his female critics because he is "an intentional woman whereas they are only incidental."

Myoon Woon Lee, the owner of the spa, sued the WSHRC, claiming that the WLAD, as enforced, impinged upon his "traditional, theologically conservative" Christian values and put his female clientele at risk.

A Washington District Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice in 2023, but Lee appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

A three-judge panel ruled in May 2025 that the spa cannot sue the WSHRC on First Amendment grounds. The majority held that the enforcement of WLAD "did not impermissibly burden the Spa's free speech," that the spa is "not an expressive association," and that "eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status is a legitimate government purpose."

Judge McKeown stated in her May opinion for the majority, "The HRC's enforcement action against Olympus Spa was a straightforward application of Washington's statutory scheme."

Judge Kenneth Lee, a Trump appointee, said in his dissenting opinion, "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."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!