Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

the public dialogue.”  Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 
FCC, 512 U. S. 633, 642 (1994).  Indeed, the Tenth Circuit 
recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting
“ideas”  about  marriage  constitutes  Colorado’s  “very  pur-
pose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith.  6 F. 4th, at 
1178. 

We part ways with the Tenth Circuit only when it comes 
to  the  legal  conclusions  that  follow.    While  that  court 
thought Colorado could compel speech from Ms. Smith con-
sistent with the Constitution, our First Amendment prece-
dents laid out above teach otherwise.  In Hurley, the Court 
found that Massachusetts impermissibly compelled speech
in violation of the First Amendment when it sought to force
parade organizers to accept participants who would “affec[t]
the[ir] message.”  515 U. S., at 572.  In Dale, the Court held 
that New Jersey intruded on the Boy Scouts’ First Amend-
ment rights when it tried to require the group to “propound 
a point of view contrary to its beliefs” by directing its mem-
bership  choices.  530  U. S.,  at  654.    And  in  Barnette,  this 
Court found impermissible coercion when West Virginia re-
quired  schoolchildren  to  recite  a  pledge  that  contravened 
their convictions on threat of punishment or expulsion.  319 
U. S., at 626–629.  Here, Colorado seeks to put Ms. Smith
to a similar choice:  If she wishes to speak, she must either 
speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing
her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory par-
ticipation in “remedial . . . training,” filing periodic compli-
ance reports as officials deem necessary, and paying mone-
tary  fines.  App.  120;  supra,  at  3.  Under  our  precedents,
that “is enough,” more than enough, to represent an imper-
missible  abridgment  of  the  First  Amendment’s  right  to 
speak freely.  Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. 

Consider what a contrary approach would mean.  Under 
Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who
speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on 
that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the