Carpenter v. James, 107 F.4th 92

Emilee Carpenter, a New York wedding photographer, wishes to refuse her services for same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman.
New York’s Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law prohibit public accommodations, including Carpenter's business, from discriminating based on protected characteristics such as sexual orientation.
Carpenter filed a pre-enforcement federal lawsuit claiming these laws violate her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The district court dismissed all her claims, but after the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the case was remanded on the free speech claim for further factual development.
On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed in part (for the speech claim), but affirmed dismissal of free exercise, association, Establishment Clause, vagueness, and overbreadth claims, remanding only the compelled speech question for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compelled Speech	Laws compel her to produce speech endorsing same-sex marriage against her beliefs.	Photography is commercial conduct; law only incidentally burdens speech.	Plausible claim stated after 303 Creative; remanded for factual record to determine if services are expressive conduct.
Free Association	Laws impair expressive association by forcing business interactions with same-sex couples.	Serving customers isn’t expressive association; claim is actually about speech.	Dismissed; no protected association implicated in simple commercial transactions.
Free Exercise of Religion	Laws treat religious and comparable secular conduct differently; allow individualized exemptions.	Laws are neutral, generally applicable, do not single out religion.	Dismissed; laws are neutral/generally applicable and survive rational basis review.
Establishment Clause	Requiring her attendance/participation at same-sex weddings is religious coercion.	Laws only require providing services; no coerced religious exercise.	Dismissed; law doesn’t compel religious participation, just commercial service provision.
Vagueness/Overbreadth	The “Unwelcome Clause” is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad, chills protected speech.	Clause clearly covers her desired conduct; no actual discriminatory enforcement.	Dismissed; statute clearly applies, no plausible claim that enforcement is discriminatory, and overbreadth claim inadequately pleaded.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023) (holding that compelled creation of expressive content by an artist for same-sex weddings violates the First Amendment)
Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (public accommodation law cannot be applied to compel a parade’s expressive message)
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (public accommodations laws are generally constitutional and further compelling state interests)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (freedom of association protects the right not to include individuals if it affects the group’s expressive message)
Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (not all conduct is expressive; compelled access not always compelled speech)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U.S. 617 (2018) (civil rights and free expression claims sometimes collide in wedding-related services)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws not generally applicable if they allow individualized exemptions or target religion)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard in pleading)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)