Advisory Opinions Judge Gets Vulgar in Transgender Spa Case
30 snips
Mar 17, 2026 A spirited dive into two Ninth Circuit rulings: one on Washington's public accommodation law and a controversial spa practice, the other on a first grader punished for a classroom-inspired drawing. They unpack blunt judicial rhetoric, circuit dynamics, and the clash between anti-discrimination rules and free speech. The conversation highlights judicial decorum, immigration context, and whether the cases warrant Supreme Court review.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Doctrinal Chaos Between Public Accommodations And Speech
- The Olympus Spa case exposes deep doctrinal confusion at the intersection of public accommodation law and the First Amendment.
- Judges disagree whether transgender status is covered, which scrutiny applies, and whether expressive or conduct-based claims control the outcome.
State Interpretation Creates Sexual Harassment Risk
- Washington's interpretation of its anti-discrimination law forces nude female patrons and employees to be exposed to preoperative transgender women's male genitalia.
- Sarah and David call this interpretation "bonkers town" because it effectively compels sexual harassment and indecent exposure in a unique business setting.
Judges Admit Outcomes Shape Their Reasoning
- Personal moral intuitions can shape judges' viewpoints even when they claim textualist or originalist methods.
- Sarah admits she already knows the outcome she wants because she cannot accept forcing naked 13-year-old girls to be next to intact male genitalia.
