Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

6 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

Opinion of the Court 

sought.  The court acknowledged that Ms. Smith’s planned 
wedding websites qualify as “pure speech” protected by the
First Amendment.  Id., at 1176.  As a result, the court rea-
soned, Colorado had to satisfy “strict scrutiny” before com-
pelling speech from her that she did not wish to create.  Id., 
at  1178.  Under  that  standard,  the  court  continued,  the 
State  had  to  show  both  that  forcing  Ms.  Smith  to  create
speech would serve a compelling governmental interest and 
that no less restrictive alternative exists to secure that in-
terest.  Ibid.  Ultimately, a divided panel concluded that the 
State  had  carried  these  burdens.    As  the  majority  saw  it,
Colorado  has  a  compelling  interest  in  ensuring  “equal  ac-
cess to publicly available goods and services,” and no option 
short of coercing speech from Ms. Smith can satisfy that in-
terest because she plans to offer “unique services” that are, 
“by  definition,  unavailable  elsewhere.”    Id.,  at  1179–1180 
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Chief Judge Tymkovich dissented.  He observed that “en-
suring access to a particular person’s” voice, expression, or
artistic talent has never qualified as “a compelling state in-
terest” under this Court’s precedents.  Id., at 1203.  Nor, he 
submitted, should courts depart from those precedents now.
“Taken to its logical end,” Chief Judge Tymkovich warned, 
his  colleagues’  approach  would  permit  the  government  to
“regulate the messages communicated by all artists”—a re-
sult he called “unprecedented.”  Id., at 1204. 

We granted certiorari to review the Tenth Circuit’s dispo-

sition.  595 U. S. ___ (2022). 

II 

The framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First 
Amendment to protect the “freedom to think as you will and 
to speak as you think.”  Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 
U. S. 640, 660–661 (2000) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  They did so because they saw the freedom of speech 
“both  as  an  end  and  as  a  means.”  Whitney  v.  California,