Female-only spa petitions Supreme Court to weigh in on access for transgender women

Olympus Spa, a women-only Korean spa in Washington, has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to decide whether it can restrict access to transgender women who have not undergone surgery, marking the latest chapter in a long-running dispute. Because the spa is a place where customers often go without clothing for body treatments, use open soaking pools and communal steam rooms, Olympus argued that the presence of a preoperative transgender woman, or one with male anatomy, could make other customers uncomfortable. The petition, filed Tuesday, August 11, follows years of litigation and a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that went against the spa.

The dispute began in 2020

The case began when a transgender woman, Haven Wilvich, contacted Olympus Spa in January 2020 and was reportedly told that transgender women who had not undergone surgery would not be admitted. She subsequently filed a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission, alleging that the spa’s policy violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. In her complaint, Wilvich alleged she was told, “Transgender women without surgery are not welcome because it could make other customers and staff uncomfortable.”

The commission concluded that Olympus could not exclude transgender women solely because they are preoperative or have male anatomy. The spa later challenged the ruling in federal court, arguing that applying Washington’s Law Against Discrimination violated its constitutional rights.

Ninth Circuit Court ruled against Olympus

Olympus has maintained that its policy is based on anatomy rather than gender identity. The spa allows transgender women who have undergone surgery but excludes those with male anatomy from its clothing-free areas. “The whole policy, the entry policy that the spa has, is not based on anyone’s identity or their gender expression or their feelings. It’s based only on anatomy,” lead attorney John Bursch said.

The 9th Circuit Court rejected the spa’s constitutional challenge. In May 2025, a three-judge panel held that Washington could enforce its anti-discrimination law against Olympus, concluding that the policy discriminated based on gender identity. The court also rejected the spa’s claims involving religious freedom, speech and association. The court’s ruling was followed by further litigation, and on March 12, the 9th Circuit declined to revisit the case. The 9th Circuit majority, however, found that the state’s law protects individuals against discrimination based on gender identity and that enforcing it did not violate the spa’s constitutional rights.

Supreme Court petition presents three potential grounds for intervention

Bursch, representing Olympus with the Alliance Defending Freedom and Pacific Justice Institute lawyers, says the Supreme Court petition presents three potential grounds for intervention, namely religious freedom, whether an anatomy-based exclusion constitutes discrimination under Washington law, and First Amendment protections for the cultural message conveyed by a traditional Korean female-only spa. “We’re asking the Supreme Court to review this case on behalf of the Olympus Spa and to hold that a spa that has an all-[sans clothing] female clientele does not have to allow a male into its [clothing-free] sauna area simply because he identifies as a woman,” Bursch said.

Bursch added that if the Supreme Court ultimately does rule on the dispute, its significance could extend far beyond Washington. “Well, anytime that the Supreme Court rules on a case, it has effects everywhere in the country,” he acknowledged.

Olympus customers divided over the dispute

The controversy has also exposed differing views among Olympus customers. Liz Bloomberg said, “I understand both perspectives. I personally wouldn’t be bothered by [a preoperative transgender woman client], but I certainly respect why other women would be bothered by it. It’s a sensitive topic.” A woman named Alice said, “It depends on the company — does the company take both [genders] or not? If not, I may find it strange and not come back.”

Kim Yuska, who visited for a traditional full-body scrub before her son’s wedding, said she would not want to share the facility with a transgender woman who had not undergone surgery. “I probably wouldn’t share it. I don’t think I would participate,” Yuska said. Regarding a post-surgery transgender woman, she added, “I don’t think I would pay attention. I’m not staring at anybody. I’m going in there for myself.”