Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 570–640

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT June 30, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 570 OCTOBER TERM, 2022

Syllabus

303 CREATIVE LLC et al. v. ELENIS et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 21–476. Argued December 5, 2022—Decided June 30, 2023 Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to create web- sites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith fled a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman. CADA prohibits all “public accommodations” from denying “the full and equal enjoyment” of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enu- merated trait. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24–34–601(2)(a). The law defnes Page Proof Pending Publication “public accommodation” broadly to include almost every public-facing business in the State. § 24–34–601(1). Either state offcials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce the law. §§ 24–34–306, 24–34– 602(1). And a variety of penalties can follow any violation. Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifcations such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sex- ual orientation; she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith's belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expressive” and her “origi- nal, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the overall message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding web- sites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “custo- mized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith's and 303 Creative's message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith's websites “will know that the websites are her original artwork;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.” Cite as: 600 U. S. 570 (2023) 571

Syllabus

Ultimately, the district court held that Ms. Smith was not entitled to the injunction she sought, and the Tenth Circuit affrmed. Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Pp. 584–603. (a) The framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amend- ment to protect the “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.” Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660–661 (inter- nal quotation marks omitted). The