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
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle