Olympus Spa v. Armstrong

9th Cir. · 2025 · CourtListener

Cite as Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, 138 F.4th 1204 (9th Cir. 2025)

Circuit9th Cir.Public accommodations Bathrooms & facilities Speech & religious objectionsFavorable

The outcome is this project's own coding of how a case turned out, made from the court's record; it is not the court's finding. How it is coded, and how to ask for a correction, is on the About page.

Docket

No. 23-4031

Date filed: 2023-12-08
Last filing: 2026-09-04

Proceedings

9th Cir. · No. 23-4031 · Docket on CourtListener

70 docket entries · 14 documents

Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, No. 23-4031 (9th Cir. filed Dec. 8, 2023)

Opinion: 9th Cir. · 2025-05-29 · On CourtListener

The court's opinion, in full text on this site

Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, 138 F.4th 1204 (9th Cir. 2025)

Recent docket activity

From the case's dockets as the archive holds them; each docket page lists every entry.

Show 1 more

2026-03-12 ORDER and AMENDED OPINION (M. Margaret McKEOWN, Ronald M. GOULD, Kenneth K. LEE) The opinion filed May 29, 2025, and reported at 138 F.4th 1204 is hereby amended. The dissent is unchanged. The amended opinion will be filed concurrently with this order. Judge McKeown and Judge Gould voted to deny appellants’ petition for panel rehearing. Judge Lee voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Gould and Judge Lee vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge McKeown so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 40. Accordingly, the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, Dkt. No. 56, are DENIED. AFFIRMED. Opinion by Judge MCKEOWN; Dissent by Judge LEE; Statement Respecting the Denial of Rehearing En Banc by Judge MCKEOWN; Additional Statement Respecting the Denial of Rehearing En Banc by Judge MCKEOWN; Statement Respecting the Denial of Rehearing En Banc by Judge OWENS; Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Banc by Judge VANDYKE; Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Banc by Judge TUNG; Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Banc by Judge COLLINS. [COURT UPDATE (3/12/26): due to technical issues, the court is unable to attach PDFs to the docket; court will manually email PDFs to parties and district court; docket will be updated as soon as technically issues are resolved] [COURT UPDATE: Order and Amended Opinion Attached]. [Entered: 03/12/2026 07:34 PM] [Edited: 03/12/2026 08:01 PM]#65

Timeline

2023-12-08 Filed: 9th Cir., No. 23-4031
2024-11-18 Oral argument, 9th Cir.
2025-05-29 Opinion, 9th Cir.

Oral argument

9th Cir. · read transcript

2024-11-18 · 43 min · Panel: McKEOWN, GOULD, LEE

Oral Argument, Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, No. 23-4031 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2024)

Filings on file (15 in 14 docket entries)

Filings on file
Date	No.	Document	Pages	Source
	10	Main document not on file

	10-1	Document	53	PDF CL
	13	AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF WOMEN’S DECLARATION INTERNATIONAL USA IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY	36	PDF CL
	25	Main document not on file

	25-1	JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................... 4	65	PDF CL
	28	BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, AND AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE	33	PDF CL
	31	Document	33	PDF CL
	32	BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE	40	PDF CL
	42	Document	36	PDF CL
2025-05-29	52	Main document not on file

	52-1	Opinion	45	PDF CL
	52-2	Web Cite	36	PDF CL
2025-06-25	56	PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC	66	PDF CL
2025-08-20	64	RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REHEARING .............................. 2	22	PDF CL
2025-05-29	65	ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION	105	PDF CL
2026-04-13	68	Supreme Court Letter Received. [Entered: 04/14/2026 01:43 PM]	2	PDF CL
2026-07-17	69	Supreme Court Letter Received. [Entered: 07/20/2026 12:02 PM]	2	PDF CL
2025-05-29		Document		PDF CL

Browse and search the 15 court documents in the archive for this case.

Litigation

Court cases about transgender and other LGBTQ+ people · federal & state courts

Cases tracked

Case name Court Level Issue / type Circuit Outcome Year ≥ Year ≤

loading…

Case	Court	Level	Cir.	Year	Issue / type	Outcome	Docs

Every case in the corpus. Click a case name for its overview; click any column to sort, again to reverse. Each case has one main issue and may raise others (shown as "also…"); the Issue filter finds a case by either. Issues were checked case by case in September 2026. Level, circuit and outcome come from the coded caselaw dataset, so some rows are blank where a case hasn't been coded yet.

Archive stats

Group by

Direct counts from the archive index — instant and exact. Counts are FILINGS (docket entries); the distinct-case figure is shown alongside.

Cases by issue

Every tracked case once, under its main issue, split by the coded direction of its final ruling (the same reading as "Reached a final ruling" below): favorable or adverse to the LGBTQ-rights claim, or mixed. The empty part of each bar is cases with no coded ruling at the trial, circuit or Supreme Court stage yet, which is most of them; it is not a claim that they have no outcome. Choose a bar to list its cases.

Loading…

Reached a final ruling

The coded direction at the HIGHEST stage a case reached — trial-level, circuit-court or Supreme Court only. A preliminary-injunction ruling never counts as final, and a "procedural, no direction" or "unclear" coding is excluded rather than shown as an outcome.

Loading…

Case duration

Filed to terminated, from real CourtListener docket dates, among cases where EVERY tracked docket has terminated (an open appellate docket alongside a closed district one is pending, not resolved). No stage-by-stage date exists in this corpus, so only this one span is shown; dates cover only the tracked-docket tier — see the coverage note below the numbers.

Loading…

Cases by circuit

A real geographic map, states shaded by their circuit's case count relative to the busiest circuit (linear). The Federal Circuit has no state territory of its own (its jurisdiction is subject matter, not geography) and so never paints here, but still appears in the list and the table. Select a circuit below for its final-ruling mix.

Table view (stages, durations and circuits)

Expert witnesses

Filter Appears in

A curated roster of the recurring expert witnesses in this litigation, with every declaration, expert report, affidavit, deposition and trial-testimony document the corpus holds for each, grouped by case. Coverage is limited by what has been pulled: expert material is heavily attachment-borne, so a witness who testified in ten cases may show fewer here, and some documents are marked in a larger filing — the testimony sits inside an appendix or exhibit set rather than as its own entry.

Judges

Filter Appointed by Coded rulings

The record counts how the judge voted, not how the case came out. Dissents and concurrences are parsed from the opinions themselves ("NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting"), so a judge who dissented is scored against the panel's result — without that, Judge Niemeyer read 4–3 favorable to trans claimants. Partial dissents are shown but left out of the tally. Votes come from separate-writing headings and from the opinion's own joinder block ("Judge Richardson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson, Judge Niemeyer… joined"), so a judge who joins a dissent without writing one still counts. Judges are resolved to real people against the Federal Judicial Center directory using the deciding court — there are 32 federal judges named Smith, and two Judge Pryors on the Eleventh Circuit. 195 ambiguous name/court pairs were dropped rather than merged, and a case with no opinion text in the corpus keeps the panel result for want of anything better. Small numbers are small numbers: three rulings is not a tendency.