Table of Contents

Notable Items
Issue Before the Court
Material Facts



Notable Items:

Petitioner: 303 Creative LLC (Lorie Smith)
Respondent: Elenis
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: 303Creative-Elenis (2023)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

The question we face is whether that course [law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Expressive speech covered by the First Amendment supercedes state law.

Respondent's Claim(s):

Public businesses/accomdations must comply with state anti-discrimination law by providing the same goods and services to all customers.

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held: Reversed.
Disposition: None.

Material Facts:

Procedural History:


Gorsuch Majority Opinion (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett)

Sotomayor Dissent (Kagan, Jackson)

Core items:
  1. All the company has to do is offer its services without regard to customers’ protected characteristics.
  2. Any effect on the company’s speech is therefore “incidental” to the State’s content-neutral regulation of conduct. FAIR, 547 U. S., at 62; see Hurley, 515
  3. Even if Smith believes God is calling her to do so [advocate the idea that same-sex marriage betrays God’s laws] through her for-profit company, the company need not hold out its goods or services to the public at large. Many filmmakers, visual artists, and writers never do. (That is why the law does not require Steven Spielberg or Banksy to make films or art for anyone who asks. But cf. ante, at 12, 23–24.)
  4. Finally, and most importantly, even if the company offers its goods or services to the public, it remains free under state law to decide what messages to include or not to include.
  5. All the company may not do is offer wedding websites to the public yet refuse those same websites to gay and lesbian couples.
  6. Indeed, petitioners here concede that if a same-sex couple came across an opposite-sex wedding website created by the company and requested an identical website, with only the names and date of the wedding changed, petitioners would refuse. Id., at 37–38.11
  7. That is status-based discrimination, plain and simple.
U. S., at 572–573.

Full Recounting of Facts

Gorsuch Majority Full Argument (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett)