NAWL Joins NWLC SCOTUS Amicus Brief in 303 Creative

June 30, 2023

JUNE 30, 2023 UPDATE - Today the majority on the Supreme Court ruled that a website designer can refuse to provide custom wedding website services to LGBTQ+ couples. This decision, while legally narrow and focused on creative and expressive services, and focused on solely the wedding website service, may be used to embolden some businesses who wish to completely turn away LGBTQ+ or other individuals based on identity. NWLC will continue to fight for LGBTQ+ rights, and the rights of all of us to be free from discrimination, including in the context of public accommodations. We must also urge the U.S. Congress to pass the Equality Act to provide more explicit federal rights for LGBTQ+ people in many critical contexts.

August 19, 2022 -- NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, along with law firm partner Covington & Burling LLP, and 35 additional advocacy organizations, in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in 303 Creative v. Elenis. We filed in support of Colorado and its state civil rights law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), which prohibits businesses that serve the public from discriminating against customers based on protected characteristics, like race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability.

This lawsuit was brought by a website design company, 303 Creative LLC, and its owner, Lorie Smith. They want to begin offering wedding website design services to the public, but only if they can refuse to design the websites for LGBTQ couples and post an announcement that they plan to turn away LGBTQ couples. However, denying service to customers based on their sexual orientation, and advertising an intent to do so, is illegal under CADA. The company and its owner sued to challenge the law by claiming it violates their First Amendment rights. After the district court and appeals courts both rejected their arguments, they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now decide whether they can turn customers away based on sexual orientation or other protected characteristics.

Our amicus brief explains why the Supreme Court must not allow businesses to violate public accommodations laws merely because they claim a “free speech” right to discriminate against customers. In practice, creating such a broad exemption from anti-discrimination laws would mean that any business could deny service to any customer based on their identity, unraveling vital legal protections and decades of progress. Our brief highlights the importance of public accommodations laws and the wide-ranging harms that would be caused by allowing these kinds of exceptions, particularly for LGBTQ people, women, and people of color.

To learn more, check out NWLC blog post.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Louisiana v. Callais

April 30, 2026

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.

NAWL Joins NWLC SCOTUS Amicus Brief in 303 Creative

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Louisiana v. Callais

NAWL Joins Amicus Brief in D.C. Circuit to Defend the Rule of Law

NAWL Joins 4th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of LGBTQ+ Equality

NAWL Joins 8th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of Transgender Athletes' Rights

NAWL Supports LGBTQ+ Equality in Montana Supreme Court Filing

NAWL Joins 7th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of Transgender Students' Rights