303 Creative LLC v. Elenis: Ruling, Dissent, and Reach

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the First Amendment bars Colorado from using its public accommodations law to force a website designer to create custom expressive content that conflicts with her beliefs. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion; Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, joined by two other justices.¹

Who Brought the Case and Why

Lorie Smith owns 303 Creative LLC, a Colorado graphic design and website business. She wanted to expand into custom wedding websites, but only for marriages between one man and one woman. Believing Colorado law would require her to build sites for same-sex weddings against her religious convictions, she sued before launching the service. The case moved through a federal district court and the Tenth Circuit before reaching the Supreme Court.²

What Colorado Law Required

The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) governs businesses that serve the public. Its Accommodation Clause makes it illegal to deny goods or services based on protected characteristics including disability; race, creed, or color; sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; marital status; and national origin or ancestry.³

CADA also contains a Communication Clause barring businesses from publishing any notice suggesting a customer’s patronage is unwelcome or that services will be refused because of a protected characteristic.¹

The Stipulated Facts That Shaped the Ruling

Smith and Colorado agreed on several points before the case reached the Court. Both sides stipulated that the wedding websites would be expressive, using original artwork and text to celebrate each couple’s marriage, and that they were customized creative works rather than standard templates. Smith also agreed she was willing to work with LGBTQ+ clients on other projects, such as business logos, as long as the message did not conflict with her beliefs.¹

Those stipulations mattered. The Court did not have to decide whether Smith was discriminating based on who a customer was. The question became whether the state could compel the specific message she was being asked to create.²

The Majority Opinion

Justice Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive content that goes against her beliefs. States can pass laws to prevent discrimination, the majority said, but they cannot use those laws to coerce individuals into speaking a message the government prefers. The opinion protects the autonomy of creative professionals when their work qualifies as “pure speech.”¹

The Court drew a line between a business refusing to sell a standard item and a business being compelled to craft a unique, expressive message. Because both parties agreed the websites were expressive, the majority treated Colorado’s application of CADA as an attempt to control the content of Smith’s work. Gorsuch wrote that the government’s interest in stopping discrimination does not override the right to free expression, and that this protection holds even when the speech at issue may be unpopular or offensive to others.²

The Dissent

Justice Sotomayor, joined by two other justices, argued that the ruling weakens anti-discrimination laws by carving out a loophole that could spread. Public accommodation laws exist, the dissent said, to ensure equal access to the marketplace, and allowing a business to refuse service based on the creative nature of a request invites broader exclusion.²

In the dissent’s view, CADA regulates commercial conduct rather than speech, and requiring a business open to the public to serve all customers does not force the owner to speak for the government. Sotomayor tied these laws to the history of civil rights and warned that placing the speaker’s autonomy above the customer’s right to equal service gives businesses a license to turn people away.¹

What the Ruling Reaches

The decision turns on the stipulation that the wedding websites are expressive, customized speech. The majority distinguished this situation from a business refusing to sell a standard item, and it left states’ power to regulate commercial behavior intact outside the zone of compelled expression.²

1
Legal Information Institute. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
2
Oyez. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
3
Casetext. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601