How did the "fake" case even get to the SC?

[Ferrets are Cool]

Don't cases have to be heard in lower courts before they get this high up the chain? I am, admittedly, not a court scholar.

[prodigitalson]

1. How did the plaintiff have standing.?

[EYESORE 9001]

4. Plaintiff had no standing, to the best of my understanding

It remains a mystery to me how this case made it at all.

[prodigitalson]

11. ok I am now for expaning the court

Hobbs got me 90 percent of the way there. But if the court doesn't even require standing, it's no longer a court but a legislative body.

[Effete Snob]

22. How will you get rid of Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson?

They all found standing.

I guess we'll have to impeach them AND expand the court.

[JHB]

58. Did they find standing, or was standing assumed because it reached the SC?

[Effete Snob]

60. Let me ask you this first

Did you read Sotomayor's dissent, and then have this question?

[JHB]

63. If Sotomayor found standing, then please elaborate. If not, then please answer my queastiion.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

64. Why should they do your research for you?

[JHB]

68. Well, a cheery good morning to you too.

Because I didn't ask them to research something for me, I asked a simple question about one point which was already under discussion, which could have been answered by "They said so in the dissent."

[Effete Snob]

65. .

303 Creative has never sold wedding websites. Smith now believes, however, that “God is calling her ‘to explain His true story about marriage.” Brief for Petitioners 7 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. 188). For that reason, she says, she wants her for-profit company to enter the wedding website business. There is only one thing: Smith would like her company to sell wedding websites “to the public,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 189; Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-34-601(1), but not to same-sex couples. She also wants to posta notice on the company’s website announcing this intent to discrimi- nate. App. to Pet. for Cert. 188-189. In Smith's view, ‘it would violate [her] sincerely held religious beliefs to create a wedding website for a same-sex wedding because, by do- ing so, [she] would be expressing a message celebrating and promoting a conception of marriage that [she] believes] is contrary to God's design.” Id. at 189a.

Again, Smith's company has never sold a wedding web- site to any customer. Colorado, therefore, has never had to enforce its antidiserimination laws against the company. As the majority puts it, however, Smith “worries that, if she enters the wedding website business, the State will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.” Ante, at 2. So Smith and her company, the petitioners here, sued the State in federal court. They sought a court decree giving them a special exemption from CADA’s Accommodation Clause (which, remember, makes it unlawful fora business to hold itself out to the public yet deny to any individual, because of sexual orientation, the full and equal enjoymentof the business's goods or services, see supra, at 3-4) and CADA's Communication Clause (which makes it unlawful to advertise that goods or services will be denied because of sexual orientation, see supra, at 4). App. 303-304.

———

She then proceeds to the merits.

[Effete Snob]

67. This is also helpful

This is the 10th Circuit on standing in this case, with which no one on the Supreme Court took issue:

[JHB]

71. Thank you for those

A simple "yes, it was in the dissent" would have been sufficient, but I appreciate your taking the trouble.

[onenote]

57. Your understanding is a misunderstanding.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18061769

[Walleye]

2. It almost seems as if all four of these "landmark" cases are bogus

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Yes, they're not using logic, they're ruling on faith and feelings as if they are a religion

which they are. You don't prove religion logically. Miracles happen. These are deliberate subversion of law in service of religious beliefs.

[2naSalit]

14. +1

[Sibelius Fan]

43. There are no such things as miracles, at least in the religious sense.

[Effete Snob]

5. The simple answer is you are being misled

Last edited Mon Jul 3, 2023, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Yes, the case went through quite bit of proceedings at the district court level, and was defended by a team of six attorneys from the Colorado AG's office.

The case was filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, went on to summary judgment there. The summary judgment was appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then on to the Supreme Court.

Here's the docket of proceedings at the district court:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4497079/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/

Among the things you'll notice is that the case started in 2016 and has been the subject of a LOT of litigation. You can also look at the "attorneys" tab and marvel at the fact that SIX attorneys from the Colorado AG's office had eyeballs on this case.

The problem is simple - The case wasn't premised on the fake webform submission. The fake webform submission is not anywhere in the original complaint.

The case proceeded on the basis that the State of Colorado stipulated they would prosecute in the event that the plaintiff turned down a request.

After the suit was filed - and gained some press attention - someone submitted a request through their website contact form containing false information. That's not surprising, since that happens to any website involved in hot button litigation. You can see that on DU when, for example, someone has done something atrocious and people proudly report having posted fake bad reviews of their business, or other online shenanigans in which people engage.

In any event, when you are in litigation, you have an ongoing obligation to disclose communications relevant to the subject of the litigation. The fake request - which the plaintiffs didn't vet either - was certainly a relevant communication.

If the request had in any way formed the basis of the litigation then, absolutely, it would have been looked into by both sides. The person who submitted it would have been deposed, etc..

But none of that happened because it was a tangential communication that didn't have anything to do with the basis on which the case proceeded - i.e. that the plaintiff had a reasonable apprehension of prosecution based on the stipulation of the State of Colorado to that effect.


NONE of the liberal justices had a problem with the case proceeding on that "hypothetical" basis, because cases proceed on that basis all of the time. For example, in Roe v. Wade, nobody got an abortion either.

But, the reason you have this question is because of the exaggerated and dishonest framing of the facts around the fake webform submission.

Justice Sotomayor wrote a great dissent. There's not going to be any discussion of that dissent, though.

[Raven]

8. Thank you and K&R

[malaise]

12. Thank you

Very helpful

[Ocelot II]

16. Thank you! I hadn't had a chance to read the opinion when this item surfaced,

but I was wondering how on earth something like a fake web request had ever made it through all the layers of proceedings and the eyeballs of so many lawyers. And so many people now have their panties in a wad about it. But there you have it, and thank you. It wasn't considered in deciding the case at all, and it would have been gross malpractice for the Colorado lawyers to have failed to chase it down and discover it was fake. There are plenty of things wrong with the case, but this isn't one of them.

[Effete Snob]

19. This one is going to be a fixed star in the universe of "nonsense people believe"

This is going right up there with "Citzens United decided money is speech" and "Corporate personhood is the result of an incorrect headnote on a case in the 1800's" in the firmament of passionately-believed nonsense dogma.

It was a pre-enforcement action premised on CO's stipulation that they would prosecute the proposed act. It wasn't based on a communication received via webform after the litigation had already begun. The plaintiff didn't investigate it because, duh, it was a pre-enforcement action and they didn't want to commit the act which Colorado would prosecute. CO didn't investigate it, because it was irrelevant to the action anyway.

Seems pretty obvious someone was trolling or engaging in a prank, but the pitchfork and torch crew thinks this thing was the basis of the entire case.

Full docket here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4497079/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/

You can read the Complaint for yourself and confirm that this communication plays no part in it. Nobody advancing the notion that the webform submission was the basis of the suit provides any reference or link to the actual source materials.

[Ocelot II]

24. This should be an OP. There's too much misleading nonsense floating around.

[Effete Snob]

28. Yeah, well

Maybe later. I've already been accused of "defending the decision" despite not having even commented on the decision.

If you go against the consensus on this sort of thing, you just get labelled a right wing troll.

What's kind of funny is that we have done this sort of thing at DU. When the election deniers set up their website to solicit "affidavits" of election fraud, people had a lot of fun submitting stuff to it. I submitted one in which the affiant saw craft descending to polling places from a hovering mothership to allow extraterrestrial aliens to vote.

My affidavit didn't make it into any of the election denial lawsuits of which I am aware, but someone scored big with this one. Probably someone that knows the web designer who was the subject of the prank.

And, get this, a TNR reporter, in that big long docket, just after the decision came down, decided to fact check an exhibit in a declaration that was ultimately irrelevant to the grounds on which the case was decided.

Kind of amazing to luck out on finding that needle in the haystack, eh?

[Ocelot II]

29. I posted one, I'm ready for the hits.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218061912

[John1956PA]

36. Thanks for mentioning 1800s case headnote re precedent for Citizens United.

After the Citizens United decision came down, I was disturbed by the allegation that there exists an incorrect headnote on a 1800s case, and that this particular headnote was used by the Citizens United court to reach its decision.

[Ferrets are Cool]

17. Thanks for the extensive answer. I don't quite understand it all, but TY nonetheless.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Thank you for very useful synopsis. . . . . nt

[OneGrassRoot]

25. Here's another question:

Why on earth are the legal minds so many of us on DU follow not explaining this as you have so generously done? Many of them seem to have their panties in a wad.

Now I question listening to anyone. lol

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

[Effete Snob]

27. The truth is frequently boring

Boring stuff doesn't drive clicks, eyeballs, social media engagement, etc..

At bottom, it is tangentially amusing that someone trolled their website with the name and phone number of another website designer in Colorado, and that it surfaced in a later filing in the case.

But the whole reason nobody bothered to look into it is because it didn't matter.

A more interesting question to me is what prompted the New Republic author to dig into an exhibit in one paper filed later in a case that has a docket that long.

Did that author dig into every other paper in the case? Probably not.

But, imagine you are a booker for MSNBC, the producers have decided they are going to do a lead segment on the reporting by TNR, you have to go get guests to talk about it.

You contact one potential guest who tells you, "Okay, it's no big deal, and I'll be happy to talk about that."

The other guest says, "This is the crime of the century. Everyone involved should be locked up."

In view of your audience expectations and preferences, which one are you going to book?

There's nothing wrong with online and media experts, but you do have to take into account that they are also doing what they can to drive engagement, get their mug on TV, etc..

[OneGrassRoot]

33. My mistake is that I view them...

as experts in the field first and foremost, not entertainers, and I suppose at some point that line blurs. Sad.

[Effete Snob]

50. Remember Trump's tax returns?

Remember how the release of Trump's tax returns was going to be his undoing, because those tax returns would contain evidence of all sorts of I don't know what?

They came out last December:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/30/trumps-tax-returns-released-launching-fresh-scrutiny-of-his-finances-00075851

Trump’s tax returns released, launching fresh scrutiny of his finances

The documents, covering 2015 to 2020, could provide new insight into Trump’s wealth, the performance of his business empire and how he was able to reduce his tax liability.

Or, just take Lawrence O'Donnell, who is fond of having experts back him up.

Do you remember "Donald Trump will not run for president?" Because, he wasn't really as rich as he claimed, and he'd have to disclose embarrassing information, or he'd have to get out reality TV.

Do you remember "Donald Trump is not really running for president and cannot with the primaries?" He has no campaign organization, no ground game, and no serious effort at organizing anything in the various primary states.

Do you remember "Donald Trump cannot win?" There were lots of reasons why it was impossible for Trump to win, and the "grab 'em by the pussy" thing utterly sank his candidacy anyway.

Do you remember "Donald Trump will be impeached/indicted/whatever?" Some combination of Michael Avenatti, and the impeachment proceedings are certain to bring him down, and Mueller is probably going to indict him. Lots and lots of experts in that big ball of smoke.

[inthewind21]

39. Because

they are pundits pulling in a hefty paycheck to come on air, yap their traps and get ratings. Some think Nicole Wallace is the end all be all of truth to power. Nicole EFFING Wallace! The one who was involved in the Florida re-count. Who was WH press secretary for W Bush, by the way Nicole, found those WMD's yet? Gave us Sarah Palin FFS! Her ass is in the chair on MSNBC for one reason, and one reason only and it isn't because she's "seen the light", it's that 600K a year salary. Same with the sudden doting on Liz Cheney. She's suddenly this model of "all that is good" because she DID HER EFFING JOB, while at the same time voting NO on damn near, if not all of Bidens policies! Disclaimer, I listen to Nicole's show, and I appreciate Liz doing her job. However, I HAVE NOT forgotten who they are! Liz is looking to run for President. And all she had to do was her job and she's been able to lull her former opposition into believing she's "seen the light", she's "one of us". And then, well, here we go again!

[Effete Snob]

51. +1

[uponit7771]

30. "reasonable apprehension of prosecution" could a person bring a case against a PD that would ...

... a reasonable apprehension of beating their ass for a sticker being out of date?

Asking for ~40% of America's population

[FBaggins]

34. No... but if they changed the law to say that couldn't vote until you paid...

…you wouldn’t have to wait for them to enforce that law before you could sue them.

And, if you could craft a constitutional argument that they didn’t have the power to require the sticker in the first place - you could bring that action before ever getting pulled over.

[uponit7771]

35. got it

[W_HAMILTON]

42. Yeah, no one got an abortion in Roe v. Wade because it was fucking illegal.

Hence the lawsuit.

[Effete Snob]

47. You got it!

Right.

And the plaintiff in this case didn't turn down any website requests for the SAME FUCKING REASON.

Hence the lawsuit.

I'm glad that I seem to have gotten through to you, so that you understand it now.

Yes, you are correct. In fact, the state of Colorado TOLD THE PLAINTIFF they would prosecute if they turned down a customer on that basis.

So, you are right! That's why they filed the lawsuit. Because actually discriminating would be, as you put it, "fucking illegal".

You understand it now.

AND EVERY LIBERAL JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT AGREED.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Was it fast tracked?

If so, how many others are getting the same treatment, leading to the idea that the conservative controlled Supreme Court is involved in a conspiracy to use its power to coup the US from the bench?

[FBaggins]

10. It began in 2016

They had plenty of time to discover it if it was actually relevant… but it wasn’t

[Effete Snob]

13. Does this look fast?

1

Sep 20, 2016

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400,Receipt Number 1082-5162084)Attorney Jeremy David Tedesco added to party 303 Creative LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Jeremy David Tedesco added to party Lorie Smith(pty:pla), filed by Lorie Smith, 303 Creative LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B to Complaint, # 3 Summons of Aubrey Elenis, # 4 Summons of Anthony Aragon, # 5 Summons of Ulysses J. Chaney, # 6 Summons of Miguel Rene Elias, # 7 Summons of Carol Fabrizio, # 8 Summons of Heidi Hess, # 9 Summons of Rita Lewis, # 10 Summons of Jessica Pocock, # 11 Summons of Cynthia Coffman, # 12 Civil Cover Sheet)(Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Complaint

Attach­ment 1

Exhibit A to Complaint

Attach­ment 2

Exhibit B to Complaint

Attach­ment 3

Summons of Aubrey Elenis

Attach­ment 4

Summons of Anthony Aragon

Attach­ment 5

Summons of Ulysses J. Chaney

Attach­ment 6

Summons of Miguel Rene Elias

Attach­ment 7

Summons of Carol Fabrizio

Attach­ment 8

Summons of Heidi Hess

Attach­ment 9

Summons of Rita Lewis

Attach­ment 10

Summons of Jessica Pocock

Attach­ment 11

Summons of Cynthia Coffman

Attach­ment 12

Civil Cover Sheet

2

Sep 20, 2016

Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. Text Only Entry (dbera, ) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Case Assigned to Judge

3

Sep 20, 2016

SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (dbera, ) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Issued

4

Sep 20, 2016

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Corporate Disclosure Statement

5

Sep 20, 2016

NOTICE OF CASE ASSOCIATION by Jeremy David Tedesco on behalf of 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Case Association

6

Sep 20, 2016

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Lorie Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunctio, # 2 Appendix Part 1, # 3 Appendix Part 2, # 4 Appendix Part 3, # 5 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Attach­ment 1

Affidavit of Lorie Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunctio

Attach­ment 2

Appendix Part 1

Attach­ment 3

Appendix Part 2

Attach­ment 4

Appendix Part 3

Attach­ment 5

Proposed Order (PDF Only)

7

Sep 20, 2016

BRIEF in Support of 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Brief in Support of Motion

8

Sep 21, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jonathan Andrew Scruggs on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Jonathan Andrew Scruggs added to party 303 Creative LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Jonathan Andrew Scruggs added to party Lorie Smith(pty:pla) (Scruggs, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

9

Sep 21, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Michael L. Francisco on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Michael L. Francisco added to party 303 Creative LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Michael L. Francisco added to party Lorie Smith(pty:pla) (Francisco, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

10

Sep 21, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Katherine Leone Anderson on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Katherine Leone Anderson added to party 303 Creative LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Katherine Leone Anderson added to party Lorie Smith(pty:pla) (Anderson, Katherine) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

11

Sep 22, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Rory Thomas Gray on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Rory Thomas Gray added to party 303 Creative LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Rory Thomas Gray added to party Lorie Smith(pty:pla) (Gray, Rory) (Entered: 09/22/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

12

Sep 22, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by David Andrew Cortman on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney David Andrew Cortman added to party 303 Creative LLC(pty:pla), Attorney David Andrew Cortman added to party Lorie Smith(pty:pla) (Cortman, David) (Entered: 09/22/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

13

Sep 26, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Samuel David Green on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Samuel David Green added to party 303 Creative LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Samuel David Green added to party Lorie Smith(pty:pla) (Green, Samuel) (Entered: 09/26/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

14

Sep 26, 2016

NOTICE re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Notice of Updated Results of Conferral Per Local Rule 7.1(a) by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/26/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice (Other)

15

Sep 29, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jack Davy Patten, III on behalf of Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey ElenisAttorney Jack Davy Patten, III added to party Cynthia H. Coffman(pty:dft), Attorney Jack Davy Patten, III added to party Aubrey Elenis(pty:dft) (Patten, Jack) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

16

Sep 30, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Vincent Edward Morscher on behalf of Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey ElenisAttorney Vincent Edward Morscher added to party Cynthia H. Coffman(pty:dft), Attorney Vincent Edward Morscher added to party Aubrey Elenis(pty:dft) (Morscher, Vincent) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

17

Oct 4, 2016

CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith All parties do not consent.. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/04/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge

18

Oct 5, 2016

CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 17 Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. All parties do not consent. This case is reassigned to Judge Lewis T. Babcock. All future pleadings should be designated as 16-cv-02372-LTB. (Text Only Entry) (nmarb, ) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Case Reassigned

19

Oct 5, 2016

MEMORANDUM RETURNING CASE. (dkals, ) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Memorandum Returning Case

20

Oct 5, 2016

CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 19 Memorandum Returning Case: This case is reassigned to Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger. All future pleadings should be designated as 16-cv-02372-MSK. (Text Only Entry) (dkals, ) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Case Reassigned

21

Oct 5, 2016

Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference Regarding Case Status by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (Patten, Jack) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Motion for Hearing/Conference

22

Oct 6, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Eric Holden Maxfield on behalf of Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica PocockAttorney Eric Holden Maxfield added to party Anthony Aragon(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Holden Maxfield added to party Ulysses J. Chaney(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Holden Maxfield added to party Miguel Rene Elias(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Holden Maxfield added to party Carol Fabrizio(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Holden Maxfield added to party Heidi Hess(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Holden Maxfield added to party Rita Lewis(pty:dft), Attorney Eric Holden Maxfield added to party Jessica Pocock(pty:dft) (Maxfield, Eric) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

23

Oct 6, 2016

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this matter is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to 1)Convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), enter a Scheduling Order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, enter such orders as appropriate to enforce the Scheduling Order, and resolve discovery matters 2)ADR: Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. Early Neutral Evaluation is approved. On the informal request of the magistrate judge or on the request of the parties by motion, the Court may direct the parties to engage in a settlement conference conducted by the magistrate judge if the parties have engaged in an Early Neutral Evaluation and are unable to afford or otherwise attain private settlement assistance 3)Hear and determine referred matters in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/6/16. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

24

Oct 6, 2016

MINUTE ORDER: A Scheduling Conference is set for 11/7/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. ORDERED that the parties shall adhere to the deadlines and instructions as set forth in Preparation for Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference, located on the court's website under "Judicial Officers." By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 10/6/2016. Text Only Entry (cbslc2) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Minute Order

25

Oct 6, 2016

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS: Any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60 days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will be destroyed. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/6/16. Text Only Entry (pglov) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Order

26

Oct 6, 2016

NOTICE re 21 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference Regarding Case Status by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice (Other)

27

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Anthony Aragon served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

28

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Aubrey Elenis served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

29

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Carol Fabrizio served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

30

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Cynthia H. Coffman served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

31

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Heidi Hess served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

32

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Jessica Pocock served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

33

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Miguel Rene Elias served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

34

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Rita Lewis served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

35

Oct 7, 2016

SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Ulysses J. Chaney served on 9/28/2016, answer due 10/19/2016. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Summons Returned Executed

36

Oct 14, 2016

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance Entry of Appearance by Leanne B. De Vos on behalf of Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica PocockAttorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Anthony Aragon(pty:dft), Attorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Ulysses J. Chaney(pty:dft), Attorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Aubrey Elenis(pty:dft), Attorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Miguel Rene Elias(pty:dft), Attorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Carol Fabrizio(pty:dft), Attorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Heidi Hess(pty:dft), Attorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Rita Lewis(pty:dft), Attorney Leanne B. De Vos added to party Jessica Pocock(pty:dft) (De Vos, Leanne) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

37

Oct 19, 2016

MOTION to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (Morscher, Vincent) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Motion to Dismiss

38

Oct 19, 2016

RESPONSE to 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (Patten, Jack) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Response to Motion

39

Oct 31, 2016

Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Proposed Scheduling Order

40

Nov 2, 2016

REPLY to Response to 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Reply to Response to Motion

41

Nov 7, 2016

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Scheduling Conference held on 11/7/2016. Pursuant to the request of counsel, discovery is STAYED pending a ruling on 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 37 Motion to Dismiss. FTR: Courtroom A-402. (amont, ) (Entered: 11/07/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Scheduling Conference

42

Nov 8, 2016

MEMORANDUM regarding 37 MOTION to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by Heidi Hess, Ulysses J. Chaney, Jessica Pocock, Carol Fabrizio, Miguel Rene Elias, Cynthia H. Coffman, Rita Lewis, Aubrey Elenis, Anthony Aragon. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/8/16. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 11/08/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Memorandum

43

Nov 9, 2016

RESPONSE to 37 MOTION to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Response to Motion

44

Nov 21, 2016

ORDER: The Court will conduct a non-evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 6 on 1/11/2017 at 09:00 AM. The parties shall be prepared to address: (i) each Plaintiff's standing to request the various items of relief they seek; (ii) whether the facts pertinent to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction are disputed, such that an evidentiary hearing is necessary; (iii) if there are factual disputes, what facts are disputed; and (iv) how long of an evidentiary hearing is necessary and when that hearing should be scheduled. By Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/21/16. Text Only Entry (msklc2, ) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Order

45

Nov 23, 2016

REPLY to Response to 37 MOTION to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (Morscher, Vincent) (Entered: 11/23/2016)

Main Doc­ument

Reply to Response to Motion

46

Jan 11, 2017

MINUTE ENTRY for Law and Motion Hearing held before Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/11/2017. Deadlines and other matters addressed are as set forth in the Minutes. Court Reporter: Mary George. (pglov) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Motion Hearing

47

Jan 30, 2017

TRANSCRIPT of Law and Motion Hearing held on January 11, 2017 before Judge Krieger. Pages: 1-15.
NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.
Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. (mgeor, ) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Transcript

48

Feb 1, 2017

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Lorie Smith, # 2 Affidavit of Jeremy Tedesco, # 3 Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment)(Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Motion for Summary Judgment

Attach­ment 1

Affidavit of Lorie Smith

Attach­ment 2

Affidavit of Jeremy Tedesco

Attach­ment 3

Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

49

Feb 1, 2017

STIPULATION re 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Stipulation

Attach­ment 1

Exhibit A

Attach­ment 2

Exhibit B

Attach­ment 3

Exhibit C

Attach­ment 4

Exhibit D

Attach­ment 5

Exhibit E

Attach­ment 6

Exhibit F

Attach­ment 7

Exhibit G

Attach­ment 8

Exhibit H

Attach­ment 9

Exhibit I

Attach­ment 10

Exhibit J

Attach­ment 11

Exhibit K

Attach­ment 12

Exhibit L

50

Feb 22, 2017

RESPONSE to 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum filed by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (Morscher, Vincent) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Response to Motion

51

Mar 8, 2017

REPLY to Response to 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum filed by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Reply to Response to Motion

52

Sep 1, 2017

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Dismiss, and denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 48 Motion for Summary Judgment, by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/1/17. (dkals, ) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Order on Motion to Dismiss

53

Sep 28, 2017

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 52 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Filing fee $ 505, Receipt Number 1082-5731693) (Anderson, Katherine) (Entered: 09/28/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Appeal

54

Sep 29, 2017

LETTER Transmitting Notice of Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 53 Notice of Appeal filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Preliminary Record)(dkals, ) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Letter Transmitting Notice of Appeal

55

Sep 29, 2017

USCA Case Number 17-1344 for 53 Notice of Appeal filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (dkals, ) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

Main Doc­ument

USCA Case Number

56

Oct 12, 2017

TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re 53 Notice of Appeal, by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Scruggs, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Transcript Order Form

57

Oct 12, 2017

LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 53 Notice of Appeal filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file. ( Appeal No. 17-1344) Text Only Entry (dkals, ) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

Main Doc­ument

Letter re Record Complete

58

Jan 18, 2018

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance of Counsel by Billy Lee Seiber on behalf of Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica PocockAttorney Billy Lee Seiber added to party Anthony Aragon(pty:dft), Attorney Billy Lee Seiber added to party Ulysses J. Chaney(pty:dft), Attorney Billy Lee Seiber added to party Miguel Rene Elias(pty:dft), Attorney Billy Lee Seiber added to party Carol Fabrizio(pty:dft), Attorney Billy Lee Seiber added to party Heidi Hess(pty:dft), Attorney Billy Lee Seiber added to party Rita Lewis(pty:dft), Attorney Billy Lee Seiber added to party Jessica Pocock(pty:dft) (Seiber, Billy) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

59

Jan 19, 2018

MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (De Vos, Leanne) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Motion to Withdraw

60

Jan 19, 2018

ORDER granting 59 Motion to Withdraw: The Clerk of the Court shall terminate Mr. Maxfield and Ms. De Vos as counsel for the Defendants. By Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/19/18. Text Only Entry (msklc2, ) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Order on Motion to Withdraw

61

Jun 15, 2018

NOTICE re 52 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Notice After U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Masterpiece) by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Scruggs, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Notice (Other)

62

Jul 3, 2018

NOTICE re 52 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Notice to the Court Regarding Plaintiffs' Desire to Proceed) by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Scruggs, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/03/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Notice (Other)

63

Jul 12, 2018

ORDER SETTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING DEADLINE: The Court notes the request made by the Plaintiffs in their 62 Notice and HEREBY ORDERS that all parties shall submit supplemental briefing regarding Masterpiece, NIFLA, and Janus, and their impact on Plaintiffs' case within 21 days from the date of this Order. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 7/12/18. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Order

64

Jul 30, 2018

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Supplemental Briefing by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (Patten, Jack) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Motion for Extension of Time

65

Jul 31, 2018

ORDER granting 64 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Supplemental Briefing. Extension granted as to all parties up to and including August 6, 2018. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 7/31/18. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

66

Aug 6, 2018

NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Skippere Stewart Spear on behalf of Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey ElenisAttorney Skippere Stewart Spear added to party Cynthia H. Coffman(pty:dft), Attorney Skippere Stewart Spear added to party Aubrey Elenis(pty:dft) (Spear, Skippere) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Entry of Appearance

67

Aug 6, 2018

SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT Defendants' Supplemental Brief by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock. (Spear, Skippere) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Supplement/Amendment

68

Aug 6, 2018

SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief on Masterpiece, NIFLA, and Janus by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Scruggs, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

Main Doc­ument

Supplement/Amendment

Attach­ment 1

Exhibit 1

69

Aug 14, 2018

USCA Order and Judgment as to 53 Notice of Appeal, filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith: this appeal is dismissed. (USCA Case No. 17-1344) (This document is not the Mandate) (dkals, ) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

Main Doc­ument

USCA Order/Opinion/Judgment

70

Sep 5, 2018

MANDATE of USCA as to 53 Notice of Appeal, filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (USCA Case No. 17-1344) (dkals, ) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

Main Doc­ument

USCA Mandate

71

May 6, 2019

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Michael Francisco by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Francisco, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

72

May 17, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 48 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/17/19. (dkals, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Order

May 17, 2019

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

73

May 17, 2019

ORDER granting 71 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Michael L. Francisco terminated. By Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/17/19. Text Only Entry(msklc2, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

74

Jun 7, 2019

RESPONSE to 72 Order by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Jacob P. Warner, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Anderson, Katherine) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Response

Attach­ment 1

Affidavit of Jacob P. Warner

Attach­ment 2

Exhibit A

Attach­ment 3

Exhibit B

Attach­ment 4

Exhibit C

75

Jun 10, 2019

Conventionally Submitted Material: Exhibit to 74 Response on 1 CD by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. Text Only Entry (dkals, ) Returned to the Clerk's Office. Location of stored items: A-2-4. Modified on 11/5/2020 (jtorr, ). (Entered: 06/10/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Conventionally Submitted Material

76

Aug 30, 2019

NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities re: 74 Response by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Anderson, Katherine) (Entered: 08/30/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Supplemental Authorities

77

Sep 23, 2019

NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities (Second) re: 74 Response by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Anderson, Katherine) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Supplemental Authorities

78

Sep 26, 2019

NOTICE of Substitution of Parties by Defendants Anthony Aragon, Ulysses J. Chaney, Cynthia H. Coffman, Aubrey Elenis, Miguel Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Heidi Hess, Rita Lewis, Jessica Pocock (Morscher, Vincent) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Notice (Other)

79

Sep 26, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT entered by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/26/19. The Court finds that the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Ms. Smiths claims in this action. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims and close this case. (rkeec) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Order

80

Sep 26, 2019

FINAL JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of Aubrey Elenis, Charles Garcia, Ajay Menon, Miguel Rene Elias, Richard Lewis, Kendra Anderson, Sergio Cordova, Jessica Pocock, and Phil Weiser and against 303 Creative LLC and Lorie Smith re: 79 Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment entered by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/26/19. (rkeec) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Clerk's Judgment

81

Oct 25, 2019

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 79 Order, 52 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 80 Clerk's Judgment, 72 Order by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Filing fee $ 505, Receipt Number 1082-6964947) (Anderson, Katherine) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Appeal

82

Oct 28, 2019

LETTER Transmitting Notice of Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 81 Notice of Appeal, filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Preliminary Record, # 2 Docket Sheet)(sphil, ) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Letter Transmitting Notice of Appeal

83

Oct 28, 2019

USCA Case Number 19-1413 for 81 Notice of Appeal, filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (sphil, ) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

Main Doc­ument

USCA Case Number

84

Nov 8, 2019

TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re 81 Notice of Appeal, by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith (Anderson, Katherine) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Transcript Order Form

85

Nov 12, 2019

LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 81 Notice of Appeal, filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file. ( Appeal No. 19-1413) Text Only Entry. (sphil, ) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Letter re Record Complete

86

Jul 26, 2021

USCA Judgment as to 81 Notice of Appeal, filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith : (USCA Case No. 19-1413) (This document is not the Mandate). The judgment of that court is AFFIRMED. (Attachments: # 1 U.S. Court of Appeals Opinion)(sphil, ) (Entered: 07/27/2021)

Main Doc­ument

USCA Order/Opinion/Judgment

Attach­ment 1

U.S. Court of Appeals Opinion

87

Aug 17, 2021

MANDATE of USCA as to 86 USCA Order/Opinion/Judgment, 81 Notice of Appeal, filed by 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith : (USCA Case No. 19-1413) (sphil, ) (Entered: 08/17/2021)

Main Doc­ument

USCA Mandate

88

Sep 28, 2021

Letter from U.S. Supreme Court regarding Petition for Writ of Certiorari re 81 Notice of Appeal, ; assigned Supreme Court No. 21-476 ( Appeal No. 19-1413) (sphil, ) (Entered: 10/01/2021)

Main Doc­ument

Letter re Writ of Certiorari

89

Feb 22, 2022

Letter from U.S. Supreme Court regarding Order Granting Certiorari Filed 02/22/2022 re 81 Notice of Appeal, ; assigned Supreme Court No. 21-476 ( Appeal No. 19-1413) (sdunb, ) (Entered: 02/22/2022)

Main Doc­ument

Letter re Writ of Certiorari

90

May 17, 2022

MOTION to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel by Plaintiffs 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith. (Scruggs, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/17/2022)

Main Doc­ument

Motion to Withdraw

91

May 17, 2022

ORDER granting 90 Motion to Withdraw: The Clerk of the Court shall terminate Rory Gray and Samuel Green as counsel for the Plaintiff in this case. By Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/17/22. Text Only Entry(msklc2, ) (Entered: 05/17/2022)

Main Doc­ument

Order on Motion to Withdraw

May 17, 2022

Order on Motion to Withdraw

92

Oct 28, 2022

USCA Letter advising Certiorari record transmitted to the Supreme Court regarding Petition for Writ of Certiorari re 81 Notice of Appeal, ; assigned Supreme Court No. 21-476 ( Appeal No. 19-1413) (sdunb, ) (Entered: 10/31/2022)

Main Doc­ument

Letter re Writ of Certiorari

93

Oct 28, 2022

Letter from The United States District Court of Colorado to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Petition for Writ of Certiorari re 81 Notice of Appeal, ; assigned Supreme Court No. 21-00476 ( Appeal No. 19-01413) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet)(sdunb, ) (Entered: 12/07/2022)

Main Doc­ument

Letter re Writ of Certiorari

[JohnSJ]

18. I wonder how many people here are really going to go through this timeline of the case?

[Effete Snob]

20. Probably zero

They are going to believe what they see on the TV machine and social media.

I was curious about this thing and looked at the actual case docket and the complaint:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4497079/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/

Nobody else here is going to do that either, probably.

But you can say "No, it wasn't fast-tracked" or you can back it up with facts.

I like facts.

[ForgedCrank]

23. We desperately

need a lot more of this here.
Thank you for showing it. I didn't post because I didn't feel like getting into 10 simultaneous arguments. Not to mention, I am way too lazy to look up all the info and sort through it.

[JohnSJ]

38. I appreciate what you are doing

[onenote]

59. Actually, a couple of us have done so.

And kudos to you and Ocelot II for your efforts to set the record straight.

[Baitball Blogger]

40. That makes this all the more unacceptable.

How could they get it this far without NO ONE noticing that this was a hypothetical? Or worse, the facts were fabricated?

What was our side doing at this time? Did we have lawyers who were fully committed to researching and confirming the information? Did someone drop the ball? Or worse, did our side get infiltrated?

At a minimum, this should be thoroughly investigated to determine if there was foul play. Because, no one on our side appears to be buying how this all came about.

[Shrek]

44. Everybody knew it was a hypothetical

It's right there in the opinion:

In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, 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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

[Effete Snob]

46. Because you have a load of incorrect "facts"

You have been misinformed about how this case came about. There's no simpler way to put it.

You believe things which are not true because they came through media channels you trust.

The case was not based on the fake website request.

Pre-enforcement injunctions are sought all of the time, and you never batted an eyelash at the fact that NOBODY got an abortion in Roe v. Wade.

But because of the way this has been presented in social media and by some traditional media presenters who have not themselves looked into the details, you have been misinformed and misled.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson all knew this was a pre-enforcement injunction, and did not object to standing.

No, the Colorado AG's office is not "infiltrated". They had a staff of six lawyers who did a very good job with this case.

[inthewind21]

52. No one?

Actually there are a very many "on our side" who are well aware exactly how this came about. Including the liberal justices. Do you still wonder just how Trump got elected?

[Quakerfriend]

7. Josh Hayley's lawyer wife, Erin, was involved.

I really wish the DOJ would take this sham ruling on.

[2naSalit]

15. +1

[malaise]

31. I want to hear more from Neal Katyal

I want to hear more from Katyal after his comments yesterday

[Greybnk48]

70. What did he say malaise? I'm no lawyer, but if the ruling is based on phony

evidence, then the ruling should be struck down. It's based on a fake hypothetical with real world results.

[malaise]

72. See the link on this thread at #13

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218061522

[inthewind21]

53. The DOJ?

Exactly what do you expect the DOJ to do?

[LiberalArkie]

9. Lawyers like straining at a gnat and swallowing camels

[Historic NY]

26. Didn't anyone thing to depose the supposed 2 males subjects...

a whole ot of not doing due diligence is to be spread around. If the news media could find them then what does this say about the costs.

[Ocelot II]

32. *sigh* Because the fake web inquiry was never submitted as evidence in the case.

Even if it had been real it wouldn't have been useful, because the case was filed as a declaratory judgment action to determine in advance whether the designer would be violating CO's public accommodations act if she refused to design web sites for same-sex weddings.

[Effete Snob]

61. Minor point

...it was in an exhibit to a declaration accompanying a motion, but was ultimately not relevant to the basis on which the case was decided.

It certainly wasn't part of the Complaint, and had nothing to do with the basis for standing.

[Ocelot II]

62. Yes, I should have said it was submitted but was quickly determined to be irrelevant,

and thereafter it didn't see the light of day until some AP reporter dug it out of a court file and decided it was the Scoop of the Year. Then a whole bunch of media people and internet bloviators jumped all over it, not understanding that the importance of the case wasn't some procedural irregularity that didn't actually exist, but the fact that a majority of the court determined that at least in some cases people could get around anti-discrimination laws aimed at businesses serving the general public by claiming that being required not to discriminate infringed on their right to free speech. That's what's wrong with the case and what people should be paying attention to, not this irrelevant fake shit that never mattered in the first place. I blame the media and people who should fucking know better.

[Silent Type]

37. Like many things nowadays, they start making a bit more sense after a few days reflection.

[W_HAMILTON]

41. You realize that the decisions from the lower courts were appealed and reversed by the SC, right?

The lower courts ruled correctly. And the losers still kept appealing until their case was heard by the Republican-hijacked Supreme Court that ended up reversing the lower court's decision because they only care about inflicting their minority ideology on the rest of the nation.

[Ferrets are Cool]

49. No, I did not. Thank you!!

[Initech]

45. It can be summed up in two words: some bullshit.

Fuck Fox News and the Christian right.

[NotVeryImportant]

48. Corruption

Is the short and to-the-point answer.

SCOTUS is totally corrupt.

[inthewind21]

55. This

comes as a shock to you? Many of us saw this coming years ago. There was a way to prevent it you know.

[brooklynite]

54. With a little effort, we can keep rehashing this story till the end of the week...

[inthewind21]

56. Possibly

But first, we need to hear what Neal Katyal and Nicole Wallace has to say about it!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

66. And Robert Reich's YouTube video....

[B.See]

69. How? The same way a George Santos can make it to Congress

while hypocrite MAGA House Republicans are busy censuring Adam Schiff.

[brooklynite]

73. I don't understand the analogy at all.

One has to do with an action by Congress. One has to do with an action by voters. Neither has anything to do with the Court ruling (which people here seem to continue to misunderstand)

[B.See]

74. The analogy is the propensity for those of the RIGHT to conveniently ignore and/or EMBRACE

lies, fabrication, disinformation, "alternate realities" and outright FRAUDS like George Santos, Donald Trump, Ron Desantis, Herschel Walker, Kari Lake, Ken Paxton, Lauren Boebert, etc. etc. etc. etc. - while in turn going into overdrive to criticize and attack liberals for FAR LESS.

[brooklynite]

75. But, as has been endlessly pointed out, there was no fabrication in the Court case

We can disagree with the ruling, but the facts of the case were stipulated to by both parties.

[B.See]

76. Well, at any rate, it's nice to know I can go out and SUE on the basis of what MIGHT happen

under some MAGA legislated piece of a--fkry.

[onenote]

77. You seem surprised. Had you not noticed the lawsuits being filed against new abortion

restrictions and bans on gender affirming care before those laws go into effect?

[B.See]

78. I think most people can tell the difference between a legitimate concern

or something founded upon bullshit. Or at least that's MY take on it.

Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court

[onenote]

79. Most people who read the actual decision will understand that the "fake document" didn't play

a role in the decision and that none of the justices, even the dissenting justices, questioned whether the plaintiffs had the requisite standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge.

I think the majority got the decision wrong on the merits by treating this as a pure speech case not a conduct case, but there was no disagreement within the court, or the Tenth Circuit, on the plaintiff's standing, without any reference to or reliance on the "fake document" that was submitted after the case had been filed.