Something's curious about the web designer's SCOTUS case...

[allegorical oracle]

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

Long before the Supreme Court took up one of the last remaining cases it will decide this session—the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, concerning a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith who refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings and seeks an exemption from anti-discrimination laws—there was a couple named Stewart and Mike. According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed.

This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.

It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

*snip*

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”


https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

[tanyev]

1. Jeepers. Stewart needs to find a cutthroat attorney to sue Smith and the ADF.

[mainer]

2. Check out this thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218053777

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218053777

Lots of comments on the same topic

[Lonestarblue]

3. Can you sue the Supreme Court for basing a decision on fake information? Just kidding!

But what a whopper of an embarrassment to have made a partisan decision based on a lie.

[Bluethroughu]

4. They are illegitimate, ignore the court until they resign!

[onenote]

16. Unfortunately, the decision wasn't based on that information.

The district court found no standing, the Tenth Circuit reversed, not relying on the "request" and the Supreme Court indicated that neither side was challenging the Tenth Circuit's rationale for finding standing.

[slightlv]

5. SCOTUS has done this before.

See the case that allowed them to ban RvW and giving dead people more rights than we women have! That case (Mississippi?) had nothing to do with banning abortion. It was just a convenient vehicle for SCOTUS to do what they wanted to do and payback all the money and luxuries they'd collected by promising they'd do it.

This is a totally bogus SCOTUS case. Brought up as a hypothetical, adjudicated as though it was an actual event that hurt someone's profits, and defamed one of the individuals named in the suit.

Hell yes, I think the SCOTUS itself ought to be sued. For taking the case in the first place, as though anyone in it had standing, and using propaganda to advance a religious ideal skewed to a government-favored religion.

Gods! Just exactly opposite the ideals from which this country was founded upon. What do we do? According to Pres. Biden and his admin, the court evidently is not so politicized that the government wants to take a chance of being misrepresenting as politicizing the judicial branch. I think Satan, Himself, has already crossed that portal -- quite a few luxury resorts ago.

[LoisB]

6. Agree. I think the Sorry Six decide what laws they want to overturn then shop for or make up

a case that provides the opportunity.

[slightlv]

8. Exactly what I was saying...

but you did it so much more succinctly and elegantly than I could... ! (lol)

[LoisB]

9. Nah. I just copied your thoughts.

[tanyev]

10. Well, groups like the ADF and the Federalist Society do all the legwork,

but, yes, these groups are very sure of how the Sorry Six will vote.

[LoisB]

11. Yep. Pretty much to justice what ALEC is to legislation.

[allegorical oracle]

22. Can recall a call from Thomas after the Dobbs case soliciting others to come forward with cases

that would help the conservative court change more laws. This case made me wonder if Smith and her religious group took him up on the invitation.

[allegorical oracle]

12. Am wondering who the defender Elenis is. Didn't think the Supremes would take a case if

Last edited Sat Jul 1, 2023, 05:35 PM - Edit history (2)

the plaintiff lacked standing. How can you have standing if you haven't suffered any wrongdoing?

ADD: Finally tracked down the "defendant" Elenis. It's Aubrey L. Elenis in the Colorado office of Civil Rights.

[onenote]

17. Pre-enforcement standing is a well-recognized legal principle

The Tenth Circuit found a legitimate basis for pre-enforcement standing (without relying on the email ) and the Supreme Court found neither side was challenging the Tenth Circuit's conclusions (and the dissent doesn't discuss the standing issue):

"Ultimately, the district court ruled against Ms. Smith. 405 F. Supp. 3d 907, 912 (Colo. 2019). So did the Tenth Circuit. 6 F. 4th, at 1168. For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website ser- vices, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. Id., at 1172–1175. The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her. Id., at 1174. Before us, no party challenges these conclusions."

[allegorical oracle]

23. Interesting. Chris Hayes last night (Fri.) showed a quote that I can only mention about how

the SC would not take hypothetical cases. But if the Tenth Circuit found Smith had standing, then that's that. Such a policy of taking hypotheticals would seem to load the docket with "what if" cases.

[Hortensis]

7. Lorie Smith (303 Creative LLC) sued Colorado (naming a bunch of Colorado officials

-- Elenis is the surname of the guy at the top of the list) proactively to establish her right to legally advertise that she would not serve gays. I.e., the case is a business v. the State of Colorado. Don't know who these guys mentioned are, but doesn't seem to matter. Her dispute was with CO law, not a client.

As with a lot of big cases, this was not just about a disagreement between a small website business in Colorado and the state.

Smith was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a far-right legal organization that has brought similar cases. Some advocates, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, have designated ADF an extremist anti-LGBTQ+ hate group. Others who filed briefs in support of Smith include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals.

Colorado was represented by Weiser. Others who have filed amicus briefs supporting the state commission include the American Bar Association, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union.

https://19thnews.org/2023/06/303-creative-elenis-supreme-court-decision-lgbtq-rights/

I'm guessing this list does not lack people who'd notice anything in need of legal correction in the official filing. Add to that list SCOTUS itself, of course.

[allegorical oracle]

24. Thank you for that. I missed your post (and wish I'd checked before searching. Never saw a

final copy of the lawsuit.

[NowISeetheLight]

13. Identity Theft

They need to trace the designers email and find out who it came from (if anyone). ADF is a known anti-gay hate group. The person whose identity was stolen to instigate this case and sue.

[FakeNoose]

26. Good point - maybe her identity has been hijacked

Who knows? Or maybe this woman allowed the case to be taken on (in her name) by some ultra-RWNJs.
The whole thing sounds very skeevy.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. There was no true case or controversy

One of the requirements for jurisdiction for a court to render a decision is the requirement of a case or controversy. Courts do not render advisory opinions.

Link to tweet

[onenote]

18. Chasten Buttigieg is a wonderful person but he's not a lawyer

and has no legal training. He's simply wrong in his understanding of the ins and outs of "standing" (as is confirmed that the dissent doesn't mention standing ).

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. I am a lawyer and there was no real case or controversy here

The supreme court has played games with the concepts of standing and justiciability. Court have limited jurisdiction and are not supposed to give advisory opinions on issues that are not part of a case or controversy.

[onenote]

21. So why didn't Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ketanji Jackson mention standing?

Do they not understand the concept of standing? Or are they also just playing games?

I'm going to go with the Supreme Court's understanding of standing as being more significant than anyone else's understanding of it.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

29. This was a manufactured case

Link to tweet

[onenote]

31. And you think Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson Brown were accomplices?

Don't think so.
Many cases are brought before there is a real complaint, a real dispute. For example, the cases challenging the new abusive abortion laws in many states are brought before those laws even take effect. I assume you don't have a problem with that.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

32. Do you tire of being wrong?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[onenote]

35. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong. In this instance, i'm not wrong.

The Tenth Circuit wasn't wrong. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson Brown weren't wrong.

The folks who bring pre-enforcement actions challenging new abortion restrictions before they go into effect aren't wrong.

The "email," even if fabricated, was not relevant to the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit in finding that there was standing or the Supreme Court in agreeing with the Tenth Citcuit's conclusions.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

36. Are you a member of the bar?

Did you take civil procedure or con law? This is a made up case based on lies

Link to tweet

[onenote]

37. Yes. Forty-five years of practice, including a few cases before the Supreme Court.

Since you asked.

And as I've said repeatedly, I disagree vehemently with the majority's decision in favor of the plaintiff on the merits for the reasons forcefully given by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson Brown (and by the Tenth Circuit).

[LetMyPeopleVote]

38. The issues about the lack of a case or controversy was evidently not before the SCOTUS

Link to tweet

On the issues raised, I trust Neal Katyal

Link to tweet

I also trust Harry Littman

Link to tweet

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1675336809159749633.html

This is a bonafide scandal. On the legal level, it means the Court decided a case that wasn't a real case or controversy as Art III requires. On the political level, it

Man cited in Supreme Court LGBTQ rights case says he was never involved washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/…
means that conservative forces in the country have effected a huge change in the law, and inroad on long-established anti-discrimination principles, based on a contrived story that exploited the judicial system and simply did an end-around the requirement of actual facts.
Finally, for the Court majority it's a huge black eye that they neverthelss will simply ignore, b/c they can, and b/c the case serves their agenda,even though they sh be apoplectic about being taken advantage of. Imagine the hue & cry if Jane Roe had been a man who made it all up
• • •

[LetMyPeopleVote]

34. Procedure exists to force the Supreme Court to rehear 'made up' wedding website case: Neal Katyal

There was no case or controversy in this case. The SCOTUS should rehear this case

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-lgbtq/

Based upon new evidence that a landmark Supreme Court case on religious and 1st Amendment rights was based upon a bogus claim, former Solicitor General Neal Katyal claimed that Colorado's attorney general has a duty to ask the court to rehear the case and that a justice on the court could also ask the court to review the new information......

With that in mind, and after host Steele said everything about the case and how the conservative majority handled it "reeks," Katyal suggested there is a legitimate reason for the court to revisit their controversial ruling.

"The Supreme Court has a procedure to seek a rehearing, so to say, 'Hey Supreme Court, there's a new fact that emerged and we need you to revisit your ruling,' so that's possible," he explained. "The Supreme Court can also on its own ask for a briefing on this new question on whether this case is made up."

"Conservatives right now are defending the decision saying that Roe versus Wade, Roe wasn't pregnant at the time of the decision and that's different," he elaborated. "Roe was pregnant at the time of the filing of the complaint so she was having the exact problem that she was trying to remedy, namely seeking an abortion because she was pregnant. Here, this web designer has never once done a website for an LGBT couple. It's the exact opposite situation it's totally hypothetical and made up. I think the Colorado attorney general should consider bringing a rehearing petition before the U.S. Supreme Court."

[lostnfound]

15. Iokiyar. And how does this constitute true standing and actual harm?

Or is that another made up concept that only applies to normal ( NOT crazy rightwing) people?

[onenote]

19. Pre-enforcement standing is a well-recognized legal principle among lawyers.

Not so well understood among non-lawyers.

[allegorical oracle]

25. So if I get it in my crazy brain one night that some individual intends to murder me, can I sue

that person and expect the court to permit my fear-filled "threat to commit bodily injury" lawsuit to go forward?

[onenote]

27. No.

[lostnfound]

28. Actually the phrase alone is self--explanatory

So thank you.

[Initech]

30. Yeah there's something about this that stinks and I can't quite put my finger on it.

But one thing is for certain - the Fox News GQP Christian Taliban can go fuck themselves to the fieriest pits of hell.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. Man cited in Supreme Court LGBTQ rights case says he was never involved

In first semester civil procedure and later in con law, the concept of the limited jurisdiction of the courts was hounded into law students. Courts only have jurisdiction to act when there is a case or controversy. Courts are not supposed to render advisory opinions about hypotheticals. The recent SCOTUS ruling on LTGBT rights was not ripe and should have never been decided. There was no true case or controversy.

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/01/supreme-court-colorado-website/

Stewart was working on his couch in his Portland, Ore., home last week when he received a text from a New Republic reporter that left him “flabbergasted.”

A request he appeared to have made in 2016 to a Colorado artist to create designs and possibly a website for his same-sex wedding was now part of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the reporter told him.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-to-3 in favor of a Christian graphic artist in Littleton, Colo., who argued that free speech protections allowed her to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Lorie Smith filed her initial case to Colorado district court in 2016, arguing that the state’s anti-discrimination law prevented her from including a message on the webpage for her company, 303 Creative, stating that she would not create wedding websites for gay couples.

In subsequent court documents, her lawyers cited a query that they said was sent by an individual named Stewart with contact information that matches the person The Post interviewed. The request asked for Smith’s services for Stewart’s forthcoming wedding to a person named “Mike.”....

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told the Associated Press that it was a “made-up case.” In a news release, he criticized the decision.

“The opinion represents a radical departure from decades of Court precedent and fails to uphold the principle of ‘Equal Justice for All’ inscribed on the U.S. Supreme Court building,” Weiser said in the statement.