Religious freedom at women-only spas
Spa v. Andreta Armstrong
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Olympus Spa, a Christian women-only Korean bathhouse, asks the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld dismissal of its challenge to Washington’s public-accommodations law, which state officials said barred its women-only policy.
- What's at stake
- The unresolved question is whether Washington may apply its public-accommodations law to require Olympus Spa to admit male patrons.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Spa argues the policy is protected by religious and associational freedoms and asks whether distinctions based on anatomy amount to discrimination based on gender identity.
The Spa says communal bathing involves nudity and full-body scrubs by female employees; its owners say their Christian beliefs require keeping the facility women-only.
The dispute concerns how Washington's public-accommodations law applies to Olympus Spa's women-only Korean bathhouse.
Question presented
1. Whether applying Washington’s law to force a Christian, all-female jjimjilbang to admit males violates the Free Exercise Clause under Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. 61 (2021) (per curiam), and Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 605 U.S. 238 (2025), or associational freedom under Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). 2. Whether a policy that differentiates based on anatomy discriminates “based on gender identity or transgender status.” West Virginia v. B.P.J., 146 S. Ct. 2356, 2378 (2026) (citing United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495, 517 (2025)).
What happens next
The next step is for the Court to decide whether to hear the case. No oral argument or decision date is set before review is granted.
Each side's argument
- Olympus Spa and its owners
- They argue that applying Washington's public-accommodations law to their women-only policy violates their religious freedom and freedom to associate.
- Washington State Human Rights Commission officials
- They say the state's public-accommodations law bars the Spa's women-only policy.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
New document added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
More questions
- What legal questions does the petition raise?
- It asks whether applying Washington's law violates the Spa's religious freedom or freedom to associate, and whether a policy based on anatomy counts as discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.