Document in SCOTUS LGBTQ+ Case Is Raising Eyebrows

One of the Supreme Court's final rulings for this term is due out Friday regarding LGBTQ+ rights, but ahead of its release comes a report on a key document in the case. It appears that document may be phony, reports the Guardian, which notes that "[raises] the possibility that important evidence cited in [the case] might be wrong or even falsified." The news was first reported Thursday by the New Republic, in a story with the eyebrow-raising headline, "The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court." More here:

• The case: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis challenges a Colorado law that bars businesses that serve the public from discriminating against gay people. Plaintiff Lorie Smith, a web designer, says her religious objections should exempt her from designing websites for same-sex weddings.
• The document: Smith's lawyers included in court filings an inquiry from a man named Stewart (his last name is being kept under wraps), who in September 2016 contacted Smith through her website for work on his wedding to his fiance, Mike. Stewart's email and phone number were included in the filing. "This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry," Melissa Gira Grant wrote for the New Republic.

• The shake-up: Grant reached Stewart, who verified she did have his correct contact info, but said he never sent an inquiry to Smith. Moreover, the father of one tells the Guardian he's been married for 15 years to a woman.
• Stewart's statement: Per the Guardian: "What's most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that's been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it's false. Nobody's checked it." Stewart told Grant that her call was "the very first time I've heard" of the case.
• Detective work: The New Republic found that when Smith and her attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom—a group with "a long history of opposing civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ people," per the Advocate—first sued in September 2016, there was no mention of Stewart's inquiry, which was dated Sept. 21—the day after Smith filed suit. The inquiry wasn't included in the case until the following February. Grant notes, "Maybe it should not be a surprise ... that this strange fake 'request' popped up in a case in which the plaintiff's main argument rested on the claim that someday, out there, a same-sex couple would want her to design a wedding website."
• ADF's take: The group concedes to the Guardian that Smith's suit was a preemptive strike of sorts, noting in a statement that her complaint is a "pre-enforcement lawsuit ... because no one should have to wait to be punished before challenging an unjust law."
• What does it mean? Jenny Pizer, chief legal officer at LGBTQ+ advocacy group Lambda Legal, tells the Guardian that even if the document is fake, it might not matter, as "the court has signaled recently that potential liability is enough to support a legal challenge."
• Precedent: The Advocate isn't optimistic that the court will rule against Smith, as its 2018 ruling in a similar case, about a baker who didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, came down on the baker's side 7-2.

(More US Supreme Court stories.)