Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Q: What court decided Colorado Civil Rights Commission?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018.

Q: What is the citation for Colorado Civil Rights Commission?

The official citation for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is Docket No. 16-111.

Q: What legal issues are involved in Colorado Civil Rights Commission?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission involves the following religious liberty issues: Free Exercise, LGBTQ & Religious Liberty.

Religious animus in decision-making by a civil rights tribunal violated due process and fairness requirements.

ReligiousLiberty.TV

February 26, 2026

0 min read

Citation: Docket No. 16-111 Year: 2018 Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Free Exercise LGBTQ & Religious Liberty

Holding: Religious animus in decision-making by a civil rights tribunal violated due process and fairness requirements.

Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

No official documents found yet.

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 opinion

Supreme Court Petition Pits Baker Against California in High-Stakes Cake Clash September 5, 2025

Cited as context
History in the Baking: Latest Wedding Cake Decision Appealed to Supreme Court September 30, 2022

Cited as context
Cake Wars Round II - Colorado baker files lawsuit to stop cake trolls August 17, 2018

Cited as context
The Top 5 Religious Liberty Stories of 2017 December 27, 2017

Primary coverage
Supreme Court to review right of private parties to deny services to same-sex couples June 26, 2017

Primary coverage

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Docket No. 16-111) is a Free Exercise case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018. The court held that religious animus in decision-making by a civil rights tribunal violated due process and fairness requirements.

1
Mahmoud v. Taylor606 U.S. 522 (2025)
3
U.S. Supreme Court
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children without state interference.
📄 Opinion available
2
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump607 U.S. ____ (2026) (2026)
3
U.S. Supreme Court
The President cannot use emergency statutes to bypass Congress for actions of vast economic or political significance without…
3
Doe XXV v. Archdiocese of New York, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, and Our Lady of Mount Carmel School2026 NY Slip Op 30269(U) (2026)
3
State Appellate Court
Neutral principles of negligent hiring and supervision apply to religious institutions; First Amendment does not shield religious organizations…
4
New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.25-40102-FDS (2026)
2
U.S. District Court
Pro-Religion
A DHS policy permitting warrantless immigration enforcement at churches violates RFRA by substantially burdening religious exercise without using…
📄 Opinion available
5
United States v. Don Lemon(2026)
2
U.S. District Court
Pending
The government indicted Don Lemon under the FACE Act for alleged coordination in disrupting religious worship, though judges…
6
Groff v. DeJoy600 U.S. 447 (2023)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Employers cannot deny religious accommodation to workers unless it causes substantial increased costs or burdens on business operations.
📄 Opinion available
7
Bill 21 (Supreme Court of Canada Appeal)(2026)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Pending
8
Troogstad v. City of Chicago25-1575 (2025)
2
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how a COVID-19 vaccine mandate burdened their specific religious practices under the Free Exercise…
📄 Opinion available
9
Wailes v. Jefferson County Public Schools(2025)
2
Remanded
District court dismissal of parents' challenge to school's policy of assigning students to overnight accommodations based on gender…
📄 Opinion available
10
Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Nick Brown24-7246 (2026)
2
The First Amendment's church autonomy doctrine extends beyond the ministerial exception to protect a religious organization's decision to…
📄 Opinion available