Can the State Force a Women-Only Korean Bathhouse to Admit Men?

Some spaces exist for reasons that go beyond convenience. Locker rooms, shelters, and certain spas are built around privacy—moments when people are physically vulnerable and expect the presence of only the same sex. That expectation isn’t new, and until recently, most Americans would have assumed it was protected as a matter of common sense, if not law.

Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean bathhouse (known as a jjimjilbang) in Washington state, was built on exactly that expectation. For more than two decades, the Lee family has offered women and girls a place to relax, heal, and connect with a centuries-old tradition—one that has always required complete nudity and, by cultural and religious conviction, complete separation from the opposite sex. That arrangement allowed the Lees to share an authentic cultural experience for years, all while protecting the privacy of women and girls, some as young as 13.

Then, in 2020, a single complaint changed everything. A male who identifies as a woman allegedly sought entry into the Spa’s nude, female-only space. When the Lee family declined, citing their policy, Washington state got involved and threatened to prosecute the business.

Now, the Lee family is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the state can force them to choose their faith and cultural expression or their livelihood.

The family behind Olympus Spa

Sun Lee’s parents opened Olympus Spa after fleeing Korea for the United States, hoping for a better life and greater religious freedom as Christians. What began as an effort to preserve their heritage grew into something bigger: a bathhouse where non-Korean guests could experience jjimjilbang culture firsthand alongside the Korean American community the Lees had built their lives around.

The Spa’s offerings—such as communal steam rooms, soaking pools, and seshin, a full-body scrub performed by female staff called ddemiri—all depend on complete nudity in a shared space. That’s not incidental to the experience; it’s the tradition itself, unchanged for centuries. And it’s why the Lee family has always required that patrons and employees alike be women.

That policy isn’t just cultural. The Lees are Christians who believe men and women shouldn’t be unclothed together outside of marriage. For them, running a female-only spa is rooted in their faith as much as heritage.

Now, that same conviction has put the family’s business—and their beliefs—on trial.

What happened to Olympus Spa?

In 2020, a male who identifies as a woman filed a complaint against Olympus Spa with the Washington State Human Rights Commission. He claimed he’d visited the spa and been turned away because he had male anatomy. When the Lee family checked their records, they found no evidence he’d ever been there.

That didn’t stop the complaint from moving forward. A Commission investigator sent the Lees a formal demand for a response. Sun Lee explained the cultural and religious roots of the spa’s female-only policy and even raised concerns about violating existing indecency laws—since the state-imposed policy would otherwise mean exposing women and young girls to an unclothed man. The investigator didn’t take this response well, concluding that the spa’s “biological women” policy violated Washington’s public-accommodation law, which bars discrimination based on so-called gender identity. Unless the spa agreed to change its policy, the Commission threatened to refer the case to the state attorney general for prosecution—and gave the family 10 business days to comply.

Facing the possible loss of their business, the Lees were compelled to change their entry policy, but only after preserving their right to challenge the law in court. The Lees used that right. The spa sued in federal court, arguing the state’s demand violated its First Amendment rights to religious freedom and association.

Unfortunately, the lower courts didn’t side with the spa. A district court dismissed the case, and a divided panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision in 2025. When the full appeals court declined to reconsider the case earlier this year, several judges dissented, warning that the ruling let the state punish a small business for practicing its faith while giving certain secular clubs a pass for the same policy.

That left the Lee family with one option remaining: The U.S. Supreme Court. And in August 2026, ADF and Pacific Justice Institute attorneys asked the Court to hear the case.

What’s at stake goes beyond Olympus Spa

One of the key issues at the heart of this case is a legal double standard. Washington’s public-accommodation law exempts private clubs from the same rules the state is using against Olympus Spa—meaning a secular members-only club could keep the exact same female-only policy without any legal risk. Punishing a religious business for doing what a secular one is allowed to do violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

It also violates Olympus Spa’s freedom of association. By forcing the bathhouse to include males, Washington threatens to destroy the Spa’s expression of authentic Korean culture, making the traditional nude, sex-specific setting for these ancient Korean rituals an impossibility. Because Olympus Spa operates the only jjimjilbangs in Washington, their closure would mean an end to the transmission of Korean bathhouse culture in the state.

There’s another issue, too: whether the spa’s policy is even about gender identity at all. The Lee family doesn’t care about identity, only anatomy.  Put simply, patrons with female anatomy are welcome—those with male anatomy are not, regardless of self-professed identity. That distinction matters because, as the Supreme Court already ruled in United States v. Skrmetti and West Virginia v. B.P.J., policies based on biological sex aren’t the same as policies based on gender identity.

PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider put the stakes in plain terms: “It is an abuse and perversion of the public-accommodation laws to give biological males access to the intimate spaces of unconsenting females in a state of full or partial undress. No woman or girl should have to give up her right to bodily privacy and safety to avoid offending a man. That’s wrong, and it puts women and girls in harm’s way.”

The outcome will affect more than this Korean spa. Locker rooms, domestic-violence shelters, and other single-sex spaces around the country depend on the same legal protections the Lee family is now asking the Supreme Court to uphold.

The bottom line

Washington shouldn’t get to sacrifice the safety and privacy of women and girls—or the faith of a family that protects them—on the altar of gender ideology over a single, unverified complaint. Olympus Spa’s female-only policy isn’t unlawful discrimination. It’s the same expectation of privacy that locker rooms, domestic-violence shelters, and countless other single-sex spaces rely on every day.

Washington already lets certain secular clubs keep that same policy without consequence. Forcing a Christian, Korean family to abandon their convictions, their cultural heritage, and their patrons’ safety and privacy, on pain of losing their livelihood, is more than just unfair. It’s unconstitutional.

Olympus Spa v. Armstrong

• February 2020: A transgender-identifying male files a complaint against Olympus Spa with the Washington State Human Rights Commission.
• November 2023: A federal district court dismisses the spa’s amended complaint.
• May 2025: A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the dismissal.
• March 2026: The full 9th Circuit declines to rehear the case; five judges dissent.
• August 2026: ADF and Pacific Justice Institute petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.