303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

600 U.S. 570 (2023)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Through her business, 303 Creative LLC, P offers website and graphic design, marketing advice, and social media management services. P decided to expand her offerings to include services for couples seeking websites for their weddings.

P decided to expand her offerings to include services for couples seeking websites for their weddings. P has laid the groundwork for her new venture but has yet to carry out her plans. P worries that Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. If she enters the wedding website business she only wants to create websites for unions between one man and one woman. Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public. P asserts the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects her from being compelled to speak what she does not believe. The Constitution, she insists, protects her right to differ. P filed a lawsuit in federal district court. P sought an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create wedding websites celebrating marriages that defy her beliefs. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) defines a “public accommodation” broadly to include almost every public-facing business in the State. The law prohibits a public accommodation from denying “the full and equal enjoyment” of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enumerated trait. Either state officials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce the law. Courts can order fines of up to $500 per violation. The Colorado Commission on Civil Rights can issue cease-and-desist orders, and require violators to take various other “affirmative actions. This has included participation in mandatory educational programs and the submission of ongoing compliance reports to state officials. P will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it. Her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held religious conviction. Viewers of P’s websites “will know that the websites are P’s and 303 Creative’s original artwork.” The district court ruled against P. The Tenth Circuit held that P had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct-i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop.” The Tenth Circuit held that P was not entitled to the injunction she sought. Colorado had to show strict scrutiny where the law would serve a compelling governmental interest and that no less restrictive alternative exists to secure that interest. The court said Colorado met that requirement. Chief Judge Tymkovich dissented. He observed that “ensuring access to a particular person’s” voice, expression, or artistic talent has never qualified as “a compelling state interest” under this Court’s precedents. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.