Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Creation of Exception to Public Accommodation Law Reflects Composition of the Court, not Text and History of the Constitution

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Praveen Fernandes issued the following reaction:

Today, the Court’s conservative majority invented an exception to the public accommodations laws that states across this nation have used to prevent discrimination in the delivery of goods and services.  Significantly, as our brief on behalf of First Amendment scholars explained, such laws have existed for centuries, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that such laws pose no First Amendment problem. That is why Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) observed in her dissent that, “[t]oday, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

If observers struggle to reconcile today’s decision with the Court’s assurance a mere five years ago in Masterpiece Cakeshop that religious and moral objections to same-sex marriage would not permit “business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,” it is because these positions are irreconcilable.  What has changed is not the text and history of the Constitution, but the composition of the Court.

##

Resources:

Case page in 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
November 9, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Precedent and Constitutional History Both Support Access to Court When Prison Staff Violate the Eighth Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Nielsen v....
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
November 3, 2026

Inside the Supreme Court case that could decide Title IX employee protections

Higher Ed Dive
CAC’s Miriam Becker-Cohen spoke to Higher Ed Dive about Crowther v. Board of Regents of the...
Civil and Human Rights
November 3, 2026

CAC Release: St. Mary Catholic Parish’s Request to Discriminate Runs Afoul of Constitutional Text and History, As Well As Supreme Court Precedent

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in St. Mary...
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Williams v. Huner

In Williams v. Huner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is considering whether a Pennsylvania prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with rigid neck and wrist braces and effective pain medication violated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Womble v. Patel

In Womble v. Patel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether a North Carolina prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with a hearing-aid battery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Colorado to allow religious preschool providers to join its state-funded universal preschool program even though they refuse...