Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James
6:21-cv-06303
W.D.N.Y.May 22, 2025Background
- Emilee Carpenter, a wedding photographer operating through her LLC, challenged New York’s public accommodation laws, claiming these laws forced her to offer her expressive services (wedding photography) for same-sex weddings, contrary to her religious beliefs.
- Carpenter initially lost in district court, which found New York’s laws valid and not in violation of the First Amendment.
- While her appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, establishing that public accommodation laws cannot compel expressive activity that violates an individual’s beliefs.
- The Second Circuit reversed in part, vacated the dismissal of Carpenter’s free-speech claim, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with 303 Creative.
- After limited discovery, Carpenter renewed her motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of New York’s law in ways that would compel her expressive activity for same-sex weddings.
- The district court granted a narrow preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the laws only to the extent they would compel Carpenter’s expressive activity in violation of the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the law compel Plaintiff to engage in activity she opposes? | Requires her to provide photography for same-sex weddings, violating her beliefs | Denies compulsion, asserts law applies neutrally | Yes; law compels activity contrary to her beliefs |
| Is Plaintiff’s photography expressive activity under 1A? | Her wedding photography is customized, artistic expression | Merely documents events, not sufficiently expressive | Yes; Plaintiff’s photography is protected expression |
| Does enforcing the law to compel speech violate the First Amendment? | Compelling expressive photography for same-sex weddings is unconstitutional | Laws apply neutrally to prevent discrimination | Yes; compelled expressive activity violates 1A |
| Should a preliminary injunction issue? | Likely success on merits, irreparable 1A harm, public interest | No injury, no likelihood of success, harms public policy | Yes; limited injunction warranted to protect speech |
Key Cases Cited
- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023) (states may not apply public accommodation laws to compel expressive activity contrary to individual beliefs)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U.S. 617 (2018) (public accommodations laws must respect First Amendment rights in some contexts)
- Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (upheld public accommodation laws against Due Process/Equal Protection challenges)
- Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (compelled inclusion of messages in expressive events can violate free speech)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (marriage equality and importance of equal dignity for same-sex couples)