A federal appeals court judge’s vulgar language in a case involving a Christian-owned women-only Korean spa in Washington State that refused entry to a man cosplaying as a woman raised eyebrows and the ire of his fellow jurists.
In a blistering dissent served up as raw as it gets, Judge Lawrence VanDyke slammed the decision by the full court of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not to rehear an appeal of a three-judge panel’s earlier ruling against Olympus Spa, which argues that its constitutional rights were violated by the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
A Korean-style spa features a communal area where customers are fully nude, with a transgender individual strutting around with his shlong out, potentially violating the privacy of the ladies and thus flying in the face of the purpose of a women-only environment.
Beginning his dissent, the Trump appointee wrote, “this is a case about swinging dicks,” an attention-grabbing opening sentence, to say the least.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 13, 2026
“The Christian owners of Olympus Spa – a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa – understandably don’t want them in their spa,” VanDyke wrote. Their female employees and female clients don’t want them in their spa either. But Washington State insists on them. And so does the Ninth Circuit.”
“You may think that swinging dicks shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion. You’re not wrong,” VanDyke added.
“But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter this phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa — some as young as thirteen — to be visually assaulted by the real thing,” he wrote.
The reference to “swinging dicks” triggered many of VanDyke’s colleagues, who were triggered enough to issue rebukes.
Chief Judge Mary Murguia – a Barack Obama appointee – and nearly 30 of the Ninth Circuit Court’s other judges ripped VanDyke, saying that his language “makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
“The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court,” they wrote. “Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.”
“Regarding the dissenting opinion of Judge VanDyke: We are better than this,” wrote Circuit Judges John Owens and Danielle Forrest in a separate response, according to Reuters.
While it was Judge VanDyke’s blue language that sparked outrage and grabbed attention, the rest of his dissent is equally powerful.
“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,” he wrote.
- Dems call for Trump to be ousted under 25th Amendment despite crickets about senile Biden - April 6, 2026
- Former ’60 Minutes’ correspondent rips CBS show as a toxic ‘snake pit’ - April 6, 2026
- Idaho Dem’s creepy comment that school kids belong to the state should make parents’ skin crawl - April 4, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.