A storm of criticism erupted inside the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after nearly thirty judges publicly condemned a colleague’s sharply worded dissent in a case tied to transgender access at a women-only spa.
The controversy centers on Lawrence VanDyke, a circuit judge appointed during the presidency of Donald Trump. His dissent in a dispute involving Olympus Spa drew an unusually strong response from fellow members of the court, who accused him of injecting crude language into a judicial opinion.
In their written rebuke, 27 judges described the phrasing in VanDyke’s dissent as resembling “vulgar barroom talk,” warning that such rhetoric risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary. While appellate courts often host vigorous disagreements between judges, colleagues rarely call each other out so directly or in such large numbers.
Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing separately alongside several others, said the blunt language overshadowed the legal questions at the heart of the dispute. According to her, the case itself was a fairly conventional disagreement about discrimination rules in public businesses—not the sweeping ideological battle portrayed in the dissent.
Two judges — John Owens and Danielle Forrest — responded even more tersely. Their joint statement was just one sentence long: “We are better than this.”
The case grew out of a complaint filed by Haven Wilvich, a transgender woman who said she was denied entry to Olympus Spa in 2020. She later approached the Washington State Human Rights Commission, arguing that the refusal violated Washington’s anti-discrimination law, which prohibits businesses open to the public from denying service based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean-style facility where patrons typically use communal bathing areas without clothing, is run by a conservative Christian family. After reaching a settlement with the commission in 2021 and agreeing to revise its policies, the spa later mounted a constitutional challenge, arguing that the agreement infringed on the owners’ rights to free speech, religious exercise, and association under the United States Constitution.
A federal district court dismissed the challenge in 2023, concluding that Washington’s anti-discrimination law applies broadly to businesses and does not single out religious owners. The Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling in a 2-1 decision written by McKeown.
When the spa sought review by the full appeals court, the judges declined to reopen the case—triggering the dissent that sparked the current controversy.
VanDyke is no stranger to friction within the court. Known for his outspoken conservative views, he has frequently criticized the Ninth Circuit’s rulings on issues ranging from immigration to gun regulations. In one earlier dispute over a California firearm law, he even released a video demonstration while wearing judicial robes to illustrate his objections—an act that another judge labeled “wildly improper.”
In the Olympus Spa case, several other judges appointed during Trump’s presidency also disagreed with the majority’s refusal to reconsider the dispute. Judges Eric Tung, Ryan Nelson, and Patrick Bumatay joined VanDyke in dissenting from the decision not to rehear the case, although they did not adopt his language. Judge Daniel Collins issued a separate dissent of his own.
Despite the legal arguments surrounding religious freedom and discrimination law, it was the tone of the dissent—not its legal reasoning—that triggered the rare internal backlash. For many on the bench, the episode became less about constitutional law and more about how judicial opinions should speak to the public.
