303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PraiseVivec (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 4 July 2023 (Reverted 1 edit by 73.47.242.84 (talk) to last revision by Boyinaroom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5, 2022
Decided June 30, 2023
Full case name303 Creative LLC, et al. v. Aubrey Elenis, et al.
Docket no.21-476
Citations600 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
Prior303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1147 (D. Colo. 2019), aff’d, 6 F.4th 1160 (10th Cir. 2021)
Questions presented
Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Holding
The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityGorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state of Colorado cannot compel the designer to create work that violates her values. The case follows from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), which had dealt with similar conflict between anti-discrimination and free speech rights, but was decided on narrower grounds.

Both Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative involved questions of whether a U.S. state's anti-discrimination laws can require Christian designers to create works for the celebration of same-sex marriages, when support for same-sex marriage conflicts with those designers' faiths. The decision in 303 Creative was seen by some as a victory for free speech rights as well as religious liberty and by others as a setback for LGBT rights.

Background

Lorie Smith is a website designer, running a limited liability company as 303 Creative, LLC. registered in Colorado. Smith had been selling website development services and wanted to move into making wedding announcement websites. Smith claims it would have been against her Christian faith to make sites for same-sex marriages. She wanted to post a notice on her business website to notify users of her unwillingness to create websites promoting same-sex marriages, and instead would refer gay patrons to other potential designers who may provide services to them.[1]

Before implementing the notice, Smith discovered that such a notice would violate the Colorado state anti-discrimination laws that were amended in 2008, which prevent public businesses from discriminating against gay people, as well as making statements to that effect. Smith, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), sued Colorado in 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law in a pre-enforcement challenge. The district court waited for the result of the 2018 Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which dealt with the same anti-discrimination law. As Masterpiece was ruled on narrow procedural grounds, finding that the Colorado agency that ruled against Jack Phillips (the cakeshop owner) was unfairly hostile to his religious beliefs, the district court ruled against Smith and finding for summary judgement for Colorado in 2019.[2][3][4]

Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit took up Smith's pre-enforcement challenge, as the state could not promise it would not seek action against Smith should she have published her disclaimer.[5] The Tenth Circuit still ruled in favor of the state in a 2–1 ruling.[6] In the majority ruling, the Tenth Circuit recognized Smith's pre-enforcement challenge that her First Amendment rights would be violated, but ruled that Colorado's anti-discrimination law satisfied strict scrutiny, deepening a circuit split with decisions issued by the Arizona Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[7] Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented from the Tenth Circuit's decision, writing "the majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience."[1]

Supreme Court

Smith filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted in February 2022. While the petition asked whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled, the Supreme Court limited the case to the question of whether Colorado's law violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.[7] Unlike the previous decision in Masterpiece, where the court had a 5–4 majority of conservative justices, 303 Creative was heard under a 6–3 conservative majority following the retirement of Anthony Kennedy and death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, replaced with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, respectively. This new court has been seen as more favorable to religious rights based on several key cases decided during previous terms.[3]

About 75 amicus briefs were submitted prior to oral hearings. Among those supporting Smith are 20 conservative-leaning states, law professors, several religious organizations, and libertarian-leaning think tanks such as the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Cato Institute. Those supporting the state of Colorado include twenty other liberal states, the Biden administration, several law professors, and liberal-leaning groups such as Public Citizen, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.[3][8][9]

Oral hearings were held on December 5, 2022. Court observers believed the conservative majority would favor Smith in that she should not be compelled to write speech against her faith, but were concerned about where to draw a line so that other anti-discrimination laws would not be affected by their decision.[10]

Opinions

The Court issued its 6–3 decision,[11] ruling in favor of Smith, on June 30, 2023. The majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, stated that, while public accommodation laws are not per se unconstitutional (since "there are [...] innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment"), a businessperson cannot be compelled to create a work of art which goes against their values and which they would not produce for any client. Gorsuch wrote that in Smith's case, it was clear that the website she wanted to design would be her own expressions, and thus protected by the First Amendment, as agreed to by parties during the Tenth Circuit trial. However, Gorsuch cautioned that the question of "what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment" remained open as it was unnecessary to define that for the purpose of this case.[12][13]

In a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the decision "grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class", and that, under the majority's reasoning, stationers and photographers could be allowed to turn down clients on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.[14]

Impact

The majority opinion in 303 Creative was considered by some to be a setback for LGBT rights in the United States. Several LGBT advocacy groups including the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union took up Sotomayor's dissent in arguing that the decision would give private businesses a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT clients.[15] President Joe Biden also expressed concern over the possible increase in discrimination of LGBT citizens beyond the bounds of the Court's decision. He stated "In America, no person should face discrimination simply because of who they are or who they love. The Supreme Court's disappointing decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis undermines that basic truth, and painfully it comes during Pride month when millions of Americans across the country join together to celebrate the contributions, resilience, and strength of the LGBTQI+ community."[16] Legal experts opined that 303 Creative would lead to additional lawsuits to test the bounds of the definition of creative works that are covered by decision.[17]

In federal district court, Colorado sought dismissal because Smith had not received such requests for service and thus had no justiciable injury. Several months later, the ADF added a sworn statement that a same-sex wedding request had been submitted to Smith's website. However, the name, email, and phone number on the form belonged to a married heterosexual man who states he never submitted such a request, as reported by The New Republic the day before the Supreme Court's decision was released.[18] The ADF stated on June 30, 2023, that they believe the name was submitted to Smith's website by "a third party or a troll" using the man's personal details, but they were unable to run a background check to confirm the identity to avoid violating other state laws.[19] Colorado did not consider the claimed website submission as an actual website. The matter of this false client was not cited by any of the lower court or Supreme Court decisions.[5] However, the discovery of this claim in the ADF filings had led to questions of why this information was not discovered before the case was decided by the Supreme Court, as such inconsistencies are typically grounds to send a case back to lower courts for reconsideration.[5]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Liptak, Adam (February 22, 2022). "Supreme Court to Hear Case of Web Designer Who Objects to Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2022.
  2. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (February 22, 2022). "U.S. Supreme Court takes up clash between religion and LGBT rights". Reuters. Retrieved February 22, 2022.
  3. ^ a b c Liptak, Adam (December 4, 2022). "A New Clash Between Faith and Gay Rights Arrives at a Changed Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  4. ^ "Colorado web designer's First Amendment challenge will test the scope of state anti-discrimination laws". SCOTUSblog. December 2, 2022. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  5. ^ a b c Richer, Alanna Durkin; Slevin, Colleen (July 3, 2023). "Legitimacy of 'customer' in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical, legal flags". Associated Press. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
  6. ^ Jackson, Christopher (November 15, 2022). "Supreme Court poised to issue blockbuster decision on free speech". Reuters. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
  7. ^ a b Howe, Amy (February 22, 2022). "Justices will hear free-speech claim from website designer who opposes same-sex marriage". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 22, 2022.
  8. ^ Gresko, Jessica (December 2, 2022). "Both sides see high stakes in gay rights Supreme Court case". Associated Press. Retrieved December 2, 2022.
  9. ^ "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  10. ^ Chung, Andrew; Raymond, Nate (November 5, 2022). "U.S. Supreme Court leans toward web designer with anti-gay marriage stance". Reuters. Retrieved November 5, 2022.
  11. ^ Devin Dwyer; Alexandra Hutzler (June 30, 2023). "In sweeping decision, SCOTUS rules for Christian web designer's free speech rights over LGBTQ+ protections". ABC News. ABC News. Archived from the original on July 2, 2023. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
  12. ^ Ruben, Jordan (June 30, 2023). "Supreme Court rules for website designer who doesn't want to serve same-sex couples". MSNBC. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  13. ^ Howe, Amy (June 30, 2023). "Supreme Court rules website designer can decline to create same-sex wedding websites". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  14. ^ "Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections in dispute over services for same-sex weddings". POLITICO. June 30, 2023. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  15. ^ De Vogue, Ariane; Cole, Devan (June 30, 2023). "Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections with ruling in favor of Christian web designer". CNN. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  16. ^ Samuels, Brett (June 30, 2023). "Biden 'deeply concerned' Supreme Court ruling could lead to more discrimination against LGBTQ community". The Hill. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  17. ^ Totenberg, Nina (June 30, 2023). "Supreme Court says 1st Amendment entitles web designer to refuse same-sex wedding work". NPR. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  18. ^ Grant, Melissa Gira (June 29, 2023). "The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved June 29, 2023.
  19. ^ Downey, Caroline (June 30, 2023). "Correcting the Record on the 'Fake' Same-Sex Couple in the 303 Creative Case". National Review. Retrieved June 30, 2023.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis&oldid=1163357119"