LGBT

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Issues

Does a public accommodation law violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it compels an artist to create custom designs that go against her beliefs?

This case asks the Supreme Court to balance public accommodation anti-discrimination laws and First Amendment rights. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) limits a public accommodation’s ability to refuse services to a customer based on their identity, such as sexual orientation. 303 Creative LLC and its owner Lorie Smith argue that CADA violates their First Amendment rights to free artistic expression and religious belief. Respondent Aubrey Elenis, Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, counters that CADA regulates discriminatory commerce, not speech, and thus does not violate 303 Creative LLC’s First Amendment rights. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of speech and religion, and creative expression.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) limits a place of public accommodation’s ability to refuse services to a customer based on their identity. 303 Creative LLC v.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Nelson Tebbe for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Chiles v. Salazar

Issues

Considering a state’s regulatory authority over professional conduct, does the First Amendment permit states to regulate the content of certain conversations between counselors and their clients?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (“MCTL”), which prohibits mental health professionals from providing LGBTQ+ conversion therapy to minor clients, violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, argues that MCTL infringes on constitutionally protected speech by discriminating against certain content and viewpoints. She asserts that Colorado failed to meet its burden of strict scrutiny because the statute does not further a compelling state interest, nor is it narrowly tailored. Patty Salazar, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, argues that states have the power to regulate professional conduct, even if doing so incidentally affects speech. Salazar maintains that Chiles’s position undermines a state’s ability to regulate the conduct of mental health professionals. The outcome of this case will also have significant ramifications for the availability of certain treatment methods.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In 2019, the Colorado legislature added the Minor Conversion Therapy Law (“MCTL”) to the Mental Health Practice Act (“MHPA”), which regulates the practice and conduct of mental health professionals in the state. 

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Michael C. Dorf for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to LGBT