A Judge's Vulgar Dissent Is a Loss for Everyone.

The article focuses on a controversial dissenting opinion by Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the case Olympus Spa v. Andretti, which involved a conflict between transgender rights and religious free exercise rights. VanDyke’s opinion is notable for its unusually vulgar language and harsh criticism of "woke regulators and complicit judges," diverging sharply from traditional judicial decorum. The case concerned a Korean-owned spa in Washington state that sought a religious exemption from an anti-discrimination law requiring access for a transgender woman. The 9th Circuit panel ruled against the spa owners based on established First Amendment precedent, and VanDyke’s dissent was criticized by fellow judges for undermining civility and the rule of law. [Extracted from the article]