Last year, in June 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis by reversing the lower courts’ decisions and affirming the constitutional role of the First Amendment and its right to free speech. The Court applied the case Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. from the year 1995 as one of the predominant precedents in the case, which can be rapidly detected from the Court’s majority opinion delivered by Justice Gorsuch. The Rehnquist court that ruled in Hurley was also more conservative than its predecessor, the Burger court, just like the current Court compared to its predecessor. A strong sense of conservative morals and objectives binds the two courts and these two cases together, forming an interesting ensemble that highlights the First Amendment’s fundamental status today and almost thirty years ago.
In the following chapters I will introduce and present an overview of the Hurley case before going into the details of the decision that can also be found as integral parts of the case of 303 Creative. By exploring the Hurley case, one will hopefully get an in-depth view of why the current Court ended up reversing the case of 303 Creative last summer and how the law has evolved or not.
In the case, the city of Boston authorized the petitioner, the South Boston Allied Veterans Council to organize a parade in the city to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in 1993. The Council as the organizer refused to admit the Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) to participate in the parade. GLIB’s mission was to express their heritage and sexual orientation by parading. The state court ordered the Council to include GLIB in the parade by invoking state law, namely the public accommodations law. The Council proceeded to claim that the state court’s decision to force the Council to allow GLIB’s members to parade as a participating group expressing their message in the privately organized event violated the Council’s First Amendment right. The Supreme Court faced the task to provide an answer to the following question: Can a state require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey?
The Court was unanimous in its decision and held that the state court’s ruling violates the First Amendment. The core issue culminated in how the public accommodations law and the First Amendment can or could co-exist in a world where it often seems almost impossible to have it all. Inclusivity without discrimination and everyone’s right to think and express oneself seems like a difficult equation to solve. The Court managed to find common ground within its composition and was able to clarify the law by examining the previous precedents and implications in its opinion.
How was the at first glance seemingly discriminatory decision then justified? Before analyzing the statues in question, I will bring up some details from the case. To put it simply, the following definition of a parade was given by the Court: parades are a form of expression, not just motion and marching. To be able to apply the First Amendment right to a parade, the parade needs to be expressive in its nature. As the state public accommodations law is not applicable to privately organized events that have no state action involved, the Court needed to also establish whether the parade counts as a private or a public form of expression. As the Council was a private, unincorporated association that applied for the permit from the city of Boston, the Court saw no ties to the state and took the stance that the question revolved around a privately organized, expressive parade.
The state statue in question, Mass. gen. Laws §272:98 (1992), is “a piece of protective legislation that announces no purpose beyond the object of both expressed and apparent in its provisions, which is to prevent any denial of access to (or discriminatory treatment in) public accommodations on proscribed grounds, including sexual orientation”, as stated in the Court’s opinion. When the law in question is applied to expressive activity, in the way of how it was applied in this case, the objective is to demand the petitioners to alter their expression to the extent the beneficiaries of the law choose to modify it with their own messages. This robs the petitioners of their right of free speech as “one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say”. The Council disclaimed all intentions to exclude homosexuals from the parade as individual members of GLIB were not banned from participating in the parade individually or as members of other groups. The Council did not want the members to parade as a group waiving a flag and expressing a message the organizers did not wish to convey. The conservative outcome favored the petitioners as the “use of the State’s power violates the fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message”.
Because the general rule established in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n and Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N.C., Inc. is as simple as – the speakers right to tailor the speech applies to not only expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid – the Court had an easier route to arrive in a unanimous decision. As the parade was purely a private event and its nature was expressive, the constitutional right weighed more as the application of the state law would have been problematic due to the lack of state action.
The Supreme Court referred to Hurley in 303 Creative last summer, when it stated in the very last section of the opinion that “all of us will encounter ideas we consider — misguided, or even hurtful” and decided to reverse. Even if the First Amendment right entails difficulties understanding or accepting all views within the people, the freedom of speech is a right too fundamental to be played with. Constitutional and individual rights are protected against government interference. It is no wonder why the current Court and its conservatives found Hurley to be an ideal precedent in the case of 303 Creative. Everyone has the right to think, out loud or not. The real challenge is to navigate the space where views negatively affect others and lead to unwanted outcomes. As seen in 303 Creative, one may need to ask the courts already in advance if they can act in a certain manner and in accordance with the law. From the spectators’ side it is not easy to even guess what is right and what is wrong when there are two weighty interests at stake simultaneously. After 303 Creative’s ruling, we will have to wait and see if the trend, meaning the law, stays the same or will it evolve slowly to something else – who knows?
Team L. M. S. L. A (303 Creative, Case Genetics)