Supreme Court's eagerness 'to denigrate same-sex marriage' meant it failed to check facts: legal expert

Former Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe is not happy with the Supreme Court's decision to block the enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law against anti-gay web designer Lorie Smith.

Smith's case rested on her argument that she shouldn't be forced against her religious beliefs to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple – though it now seems nobody had ever asked her to do that.

Just days before the court's decision came down, reporters discovered that a man listed in a court filing as a potential same-sex wedding client was actually straight, married, and hadn't been involved in the case at all — sparking questions about whether the far-right Alliance Defending Freedom's attorneys lied to federal courts.

Speaking to Salon, Tribe accused the Supreme Court of getting out ahead of its skis just to rule in favor of culture warriors.

"The entire case was based on entirely hypothetical 'worries' that the web designer claimed to have about how the state's officers might come after her under the state anti-discrimination laws if a same-sex couple were to ask her to design a wedding site for them and if she were to refuse," said Tribe.

"In my view, the disgraceful fact ... is the very fact that the Supreme Court's majority was willing to render what amounted to an advisory opinion that it would never have done but for its eagerness to denigrate same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights generally and that, under Article III, it had no business doing."

Former Solicitor General Neal Katyal has suggested the false filing could be grounds for the Supreme Court to "rehear" the case. However, according to Salon, many other legal experts, including Tribe and former federal prosecutors Barbara McQuade and University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman, have pushed back on this, calling it extremely unlikely and a dubious interpretation of court procedure.

However, they agreed that the lawyers who brought Smith's case could face professional discipline if they deliberately included false information in filings, with McQuade telling Salon, "The lawyers may have an ethics problem to address with their state bar."