Ninth Circuit Judge's "Swinging Dicks" Dissent Ignites Judicial Firestorm

A dissenting opinion by Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, which begins with the phrase "This is a case about swinging dicks," has sparked outrage among his colleagues following the court's denial of an en banc rehearing in *Olympus Spa v. Armstrong*. The case centers on a Christian-owned, women-only nude spa in Washington State that objects to admitting individuals with male genitalia, citing religious beliefs and concerns for female patrons and employees. VanDyke's dissent argues that the state's mandate and the court's decision ignore the "horrific consequences" for women and girls, accusing "woke regulators and complicit judges" of imposing "Frankenstein social experiments."

Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by 28 other judges, issued a rare statement condemning VanDyke's language as "vulgar barroom talk" that undermines public trust and collegiality. McKeown emphasized that the legal system demands dignity and civility, not "publicity or entertainment value." In response, VanDyke doubled down, accusing his colleagues of having "the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun" when it comes to his words, while exhibiting "scruples" when it comes to religious liberties and the exposure of women to male genitalia. He insists the "shocking language is necessary" to highlight the true nature of the case, which he believes the majority attempts to obscure with "slick legal arguments.