303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 983 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis; 600 U.S. 570, 143 S. Ct. 2298 (2023)
Many states have public-accommodations laws that prohibit businesses open to the public from discriminating based on sexual orientation. 303 Creative LLC versus Elenis examines whether enforcing such a law would violate a business owner’s First Amendment rights.
Lorie Smith owned 303 Creative LLC, a Colorado business that offered custom website design services. Smith wanted to design wedding websites through 303 Creative, but she didn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples because of her sincere religious belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Smith worried that if she offered wedding website-design services to the public, the state would force her to create wedding websites for same-sex couples under the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act. The act prohibited businesses that provided goods and services to the public from discriminating based on various protected classes, including sexual orientation. Penalties for violating the act included mandatory training sessions and monetary fines.
Smith brought an action in federal district court against state officials, including Aubrey Elenis, director of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. She sought an injunction to prevent the state from forcing her to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. Smith and the officials stipulated that Smith’s potential wedding website designs would be original, customized expressive content that communicated Smith’s and 303’s messages celebrating and promoting marriage. The parties also stipulated that Smith would create other custom graphics and websites for customers of any sexual orientation, but she wouldn’t produce content that violated her religious beliefs.
The district court granted summary judgment for the officials, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Tenth Circuit said that Smith’s potential wedding websites were pure speech protected by the First Amendment. But the court also recognized Colorado’s compelling interest in ensuring equal, nondiscriminatory access to publicly available goods and services. The court said that requiring Smith to create wedding websites for all customers was the least restrictive way to achieve the state’s interest. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 45,300 case briefs keyed to 983 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries