[10] Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented from the Tenth Circuit's decision, writing "the majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience.

While the petition asked whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled, the Supreme Court limited the case to the question of whether Colorado's law violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Among those supporting Smith were 20 conservative-leaning states, law professors, several religious organizations, and libertarian-leaning think tanks such as the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Cato Institute.

Court observers believed the conservative majority would favor Smith in that she should not be compelled to write speech against her faith, but were concerned about where to draw a line so that other anti-discrimination laws would not be affected by their decision.

[15][16][17][18] The majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, stated that, while public accommodation laws are not per se unconstitutional (since "there are [...] innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment"), a businessperson cannot be compelled to create a work of art which goes against their values and which they would not produce for any client.

Gorsuch wrote that in Smith's case, it was clear that the website she wanted to design would be her own expressions, and thus protected by the First Amendment, as agreed to by parties during the Tenth Circuit trial.

[25] It has been seen as a setback for LGBTQ protections by advocacy groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and nonprofit legal organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Supreme Court's disappointing decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis undermines that basic truth, and painfully it comes during Pride month when millions of Americans across the country join together to celebrate the contributions, resilience, and strength of the LGBTQI+ community.

[6] However, the name, email, and phone number on the online form belong to a man who has long been married to a woman, and who stated that he never submitted such a request, as reported by The New Republic on June 29, 2023, a day before the Supreme Court's decision was released.

[30] The ADF stated on June 30 that they believe the name was submitted to Smith's website by "a third party or a troll" using the man's personal details; neither they nor their client attempted to verify the requestor's identity.

[8] It was later discovered by The New Republic that Smith had made a wedding website for a heterosexual couple in 2015, which had been removed from her business's profile prior to her filing the case but remained visible in the Wayback Machine archives.

[32][33] The New Republic article notes that, "[Smith's] website six months prior to the lawsuit being filed in 2016 does not include any of the Christian messaging that it did shortly afterward...archived versions of the site show.