Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFree SpeechCompelled SpeechPublic AccommodationsFree Speech Clausecompelled speechpublic accommodations

Facts

Lorie Smith, through 303 Creative LLC, planned to expand her business to create custom wedding websites containing original text, graphics, and videos celebrating a couple's unique love story. The parties stipulated that her websites are expressive, original, customized creations, that viewers would understand them as her artwork, and that she would work with customers regardless of sexual orientation but would not create content that contradicts her beliefs. Smith alleged that if she offered wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, Colorado would use its public accommodations law to compel her to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages as well. Colorado's law applies broadly to public-facing businesses and authorizes enforcement actions, fines, cease-and-desist orders, and other remedial measures.

Issue

May Colorado, consistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, use its public accommodations law to compel a website designer to create expressive wedding websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse? More specifically, can the State require a speaker engaged in custom expressive services to speak the State's preferred message or face sanctions?

Rule

The First Amendment protects a speaker's right to control the content of her own speech and bars the government from compelling an individual engaged in expressive activity to create speech she does not believe. Public accommodations laws remain generally valid, but they may not be applied to compel speech when a speaker's customized, expressive services are at issue.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Nora Whitman operates Blue Harbor Vows, a sole-member LLC that writes custom wedding toasts for clients. She works with all customers regardless of sexual orientation, but she refuses to draft a toast celebrating a polyamorous commitment ceremony because she believes that message is false; Washington threatens to enforce its public accommodations law if she offers wedding toasts for other ceremonies but not this one.

Assuming the toasts are original, customized, and understood as Nora's own writing, which is the strongest First Amendment argument?

Explanation. The majority opinion holds that the First Amendment forbids a State from using a public accommodations law to compel a person engaged in expressive activity to create speech she does not believe. Where the service is original, customized, expressive content and the State would force the speaker to celebrate a message she rejects, the application is unconstitutional. The fact that the speech is sold for pay does not remove First Amendment protection, and uniqueness does not justify conscripting the speaker's voice.