Facts

Lorie Smith, through her solely owned business 303 Creative LLC, provides website and graphic design, marketing advice, and social media management services. She decided to expand her offerings to include custom wedding websites featuring original text, graphics, and videos that celebrate couples' unique love stories, how they met, their backgrounds, families, future plans, and wedding details. These websites would be expressive, customized creations displaying her company's name, conveying messages about marriage that align with her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Smith has never created content contradicting her views, such as promoting violence, demeaning others, or defying her faith, and she provides services to all customers regardless of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, but refuses to create expressions inconsistent with her beliefs.

Concerned that entering the wedding website market would subject her to enforcement under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits public accommodations from denying the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services based on protected traits including sexual orientation, Smith worried the state would compel her to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages, against her conscience. CADA allows enforcement by state officials or private citizens, with penalties including fines up to $500 per violation, cease-and-desist orders, mandatory education, and compliance reporting, as seen in prior cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).

To clarify her rights, Smith filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit in federal district court against Colorado officials, seeking an injunction to prevent the state from forcing her to create wedding websites for marriages she does not endorse. The parties stipulated to key facts, including that Smith's services are expressive, her websites would promote her view of marriage, she holds sincere religious convictions, and she would work with clients of any sexual orientation so long as the content aligns with her beliefs. The district court ruled against Smith, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding standing but holding that Colorado could compel her speech under strict scrutiny due to a compelling interest in equal access to unique services. Smith petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted to review the merits.

Analysis

Issue #1

Issue

Do the wedding websites Ms. Smith proposes to create qualify as pure speech protected by the First Amendment?

Legal Rule

Speech protected by the First Amendment includes images, words, symbols, and other modes of expression, whether conveyed traditionally or over the Internet, and encompasses original, customized creations designed to communicate ideas, even if combining multiple voices or created for compensation.

Rule Analysis

The parties stipulated that Ms. Smith's planned wedding websites would contain images, words, symbols, and other expressions; be original, customized creations; and communicate ideas celebrating the couple's wedding and what Ms. Smith views as a true marriage. These stipulations aligned with precedents protecting various forms of speech, from pictures and films to Internet-based expressions.

The fact that the websites would be created over the Internet did not diminish their status as protected speech, as the medium does not affect First Amendment protections. Additionally, while the final product might incorporate the couple's input, Ms. Smith would vet projects, consult on stories, and produce content using her own words and artwork, retaining the expressive nature of her contributions.

Conclusion

Yes, the proposed wedding websites qualify as pure speech protected by the First Amendment.

Issue #2

Issue

Does Colorado's application of its Anti-Discrimination Act to Ms. Smith impermissibly compel speech in violation of the First Amendment?

Legal Rule

The First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling individuals to speak messages they do not believe or to include unwanted ideas in their speech, subject to strict scrutiny where the state must show a compelling interest and no less restrictive means; precedents like West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale establish that forcing speakers to alter their expressive content or accept contrary messages abridges free speech rights.

Rule Analysis

Colorado sought to use its law to force Ms. Smith, if she offered wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, to create custom websites for other marriages she does not, aiming to eliminate dissenting views on marriage. This compelled her to convey messages inconsistent with her beliefs, similar to impermissible actions in Barnette (forcing flag salute), Hurley (requiring parade inclusion altering message), and Dale (forcing association membership interfering with views).

The state's interest in ensuring equal access to goods and services, while compelling in general, could not justify compelling speech here, as public accommodations laws must yield when they collide with First Amendment protections against coerced expression. The Tenth Circuit's rationale that Ms. Smith's unique services justified compulsion was rejected, as uniqueness does not permit the government to coopt an individual's voice.

Alternative arguments that the case involved only conduct or incidental speech burdens were inconsistent with stipulations confirming the expressive, customized nature of the websites. Permitting such compulsion would allow broad government interference with artists and speakers, contrary to the First Amendment's protection of an uninhibited marketplace of ideas. Consistent with the Constitution, the judgment of the Tenth Circuit was reversed.

Conclusion

Yes, Colorado's application of its law to compel Ms. Smith to create expressive wedding websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.