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
March 26, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.