October Term 2022 · Docket 21-476

Does a website designer have a First Amendment right to refuse same-sex clients?

A website designer claims a state law forces her to create messages she finds offensive. The state argues the law targets discrimination, not speech.

Official caption
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Smith's lawyer argued the law forces her to speak against her conscience.

    The state's lawyer argued the law targets discrimination, not expression.

    Justice Sotomayor questioned the limit of refusing service to other groups.

    Justice Kagan noted the website content might not change based on the client.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Lorie Smith runs a website design business. She claims Colorado law forces her to create messages that violate her conscience. The state argues the law targets discrimination, not speech. The Court must decide if the law targets expression.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Smith wants the Court to strike down the state law as applied to her.

The state wants the Court to uphold the law as a valid anti-discrimination measure.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Smith argues the law targets her expression by forcing her to create specific messages.

The state argues the law targets discriminatory conduct, not the content of speech.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked where the line lies for refusing other groups.

Justice Kagan asked if the website content actually changes based on the client.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between free speech and anti-discrimination law. It determines whether businesses can refuse service based on the message they must create. The outcome affects how states enforce equal access laws for all citizens.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON