A Trump-appointed federal judge on Friday went viral for an extremely colorful dissenting opinion after the majority of his colleagues bowed down to the woke trans mob, triggering them as a result.
On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear the case of Olympus Spa v. Armstrong. Olympus Spa, a Christian-owned, female-only Korean spa in Washington State, was barred from suing the state on First Amendment grounds for forcing it to allow men pretending to be women.
As Courthouse News notes, the state’s ‘Human Rights Commission’ back in 2020 issued a complaint after a so-called ‘woman’ with a p*nis was denied entry. The spa then sued the Human Rights Commission on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the state’s policy violated its rights to the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and association.
A federal judge dismissed Olympus Spa’s claim. Last May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, issued a dissent for the ages that tore into his woke colleagues for chickening out a second time. He began in style.
He first noted this case was about “swinging d*cks” and wrote that the State of Washington insisted on allowing men to do this at the Olympus Spa and ripped the Ninth Circuit for certifying this.
Anticipating a backlash to his politically incorrect language, VanDyke stated that young girls have been “visually assaulted” by these freaks visiting the spa.
Then he turned his attention to his colleagues and did not mince words, saying: “complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls.”
Well, this is what happens when the Emperor Has No Clothes. pic.twitter.com/dWGhzlZKTF
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 13, 2026
This is a case about swinging d*cks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don’t want them in their spa. Their female employees and female clients don’t want them in their spa either.
But Washington State insists on them. And now so does the Ninth Circuit. You may think that swinging d*cks shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion.
You’re not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that 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.
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.
Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, issued a scathing statement alongside 28 other members of the Court, scolding VanDyke for his “coarse language” and for seeking “entertainment.”
From Reason:
The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”1 It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans.
That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. 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.
Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.
But as Reason notes, VanDyke refused to back down:
Finally, I’ll respond briefly to my colleagues’ discomfort with how I’ve written this dissent. My distressed colleagues appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun when it comes to mere unpleasant words in my opinion, yet exhibit the scruples of our dearly departed colleague Judge Reinhardt when it comes to the government trampling on religious liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia. That kind of selective outrage speaks for itself.
The public deserves a court that is actually trustworthy. We should be earning that trust, not demanding it like petty tyrants. Yes, the introduction to this dissent intentionally uses indecorous language. But that is quite literally what this case is about. Male genitalia is precisely (and only) what the Spa, for religious reasons, objects to admitting into its female-only space. The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging dicks is the very reason the shocking language is necessary. The panel majority uses slick legal arguments and deflection to studiously avoid eye contact with the actual and horrific consequences of its erroneous opinion. The “ordinary Americans” affected by the majority’s opinion don’t have that luxury. Squirm as we might, I think it’s only fair for our court to have a small taste of its own medicine.
Sometimes “dignified and civil” words are employed to mask a legal abomination. Or, to put it in vernacular perhaps more palatable to my colleagues’ Victorian sensibilities: “In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, / But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, / Obscures the show of evil?”
Sometimes coarse and ugly words bear the truth. I coarsely but respectfully dissent from our court’s willingness to leave this travesty in place.
Should either Justices Alito or Thomas retire from the Supreme Court, VanDyke would make a very worthy replacement.
The post Trump Judge Triggers His Woke 9th Circuit Court Colleagues with an EXPLOSIVE Dissent in Case About “Swinging D*cks” in a Female-Only Spa appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.