I came across an article that claims that 303 Creative v Elenis uses misleading information in its filing:

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role [...] It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained.

The initial lawsuit did not mention the “Stewart” inquiry, which was submitted to Smith’s website on September 21, according to the date-stamp shown in later court filings, indicating that she received it the day after the suit was originally filed.

Source: newrepublic.com

Some alternate sources that all seem to be based on the same article:

  • 3
    Note: Please take care when drawing conclusions from any answer. I note LawTwitter e.g. have been dismissive that this has any bearing on whether the decision is binding.
    – Oddthinking
    Commented Jul 3, 2023 at 16:04
  • 2
    @Oddthinking Good note, could you get a screencap of that tweet? Twitter is failing to load for me
    – GammaGames
    Commented Jul 3, 2023 at 16:09
  • 6
    It is a long thread, with people asking clarifying questions, but the key claim is from North Carolina lawyer T. Greg Doucette: "The facts in the 303 case were stipulated, meaning both sides agreed to them and the Court is required to take them as true for purposes of making its decision "
    – Oddthinking
    Commented Jul 3, 2023 at 16:12
  • 3
    @SeanDuggan moreover, it throttles the tweets that you can see without an account to exactly 0 Commented Jul 3, 2023 at 19:39
  • 1
    The whole case was hypothetical: Lorie Smith and 303 Creative, LLC had not produced any wedding websites when the case was started in federal court, but she had found out that posting a "no same-sex weddings" notice would have contravened Colorado law and wanted a ruling on that issue as a pre-enforcement challenge. Many courts could have rejected the case on the basis there was no actual dispute, but the district court and the Tenth Circuit US Appeals Court and SCOTUS all saw the enforcement threat as credible and considered the case, ignoring the alleged later application from Stewart.
    – Henry
    Commented Jul 5, 2023 at 10:30


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .