Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: December 5, 2022
Decided: June 30, 2023
Outcome
reversed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. It was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 5, 2022.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned First Amendment challenges and anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQIA+ rights.
  • The question presented: "Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment."[1]
  • The outcome In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, holding that the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing a web designer to create designs speaking messages that the designer disagrees with. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[2]


    • 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis:

    Background

    Lorie Smith, owner and website designer of 303 Creative LLC, does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex weddings due to religious reasons. She would like to post a message on her business’s website to explain that she can only create websites that align with her religious beliefs.[4] The Colorado Antidiscrimination Act (CADA) does not allow businesses to refuse services to customers based on characteristics like sexual orientation and does not allow businesses to announce their intention to refuse to perform such services.[5]

    Colorado Antidiscrimination Act (CADA)

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601 reads as follows:[6]

    “

    (2)

    (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.[7]
    		 ”

    Smith challenged CADA in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, arguing that creating websites for same-sex weddings would violate her First Amendment rights. The district court ruled in favor of enforcing CADA, granting a summary judgment for Colorado.[8]

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. In an opinion on the case, Judge Mary Briscoe wrote:[9]

    “ As to our jurisdiction, we hold that Appellants have standing to challenge CADA. As to the merits, we hold that CADA satisfies strict scrutiny, and thus permissibly compels Appellants' speech. We also hold that CADA is a neutral law of general applicability, and that it is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Colorado.[7] ”

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[1]

    Question presented:
    “

    Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.[7]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[11]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, holding that the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing a web designer to create designs speaking messages that the designer disagrees with. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[2]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider “unattractive,” post, at 38 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), “misguided, or even hurtful,” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is Reversed.[7] ”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[2]

    “ Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).


    Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a websitedesign company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’” Ibid.

    “What a difference five years makes.” Carson v. Makin, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5). And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.

    Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent. [7]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[12]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis: QUESTION PRESENTED," accessed February 22, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "303 Creative LLC et al. v. Elenis et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," accessed June 30, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, decided July 26, 2021
    4. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court',' "303 Creative LLC, A Limited Liability Company; Lorie Smith, V. Aubrey Elenis; Charles Garcia; Ajay Menon; Miguel Rene Elias; Richard Lewis; Kendra Anderson; Sergio Cordova; Jessica Pocock; Phil Weiser On Petition for A ‘’Writ’’ of ‘’Certiorari’’," filed September 24, 2021
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear free-speech claim from website designer who opposes same-sex marriage," accessed November 10, 2022
    6. ↑ “Casetext, "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601," accessed November 10, 2022
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Oyez, "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis," accessed November 10, 2022
    9. ↑ “Casetext, "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis," accessed November 10, 2022
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 5, 2022
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 5, 2022
    12. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis&oldid=9167745"