It doesn't matter that there was a fake detail in the case the Supreme Court used to roll back LGBTQ+ rights, experts say

• The Supreme Court ruled last week that a Colorado wedding website designer has the right to refuse service to same-sex couples.
• The New Republic reported that a website request cited in the case appears to have been fabricated.

Democrats and gay rights advocates flew into a frenzy last week when it emerged that a detail in a high-stakes Supreme Court case appeared to be made up.

In a 6-3 decision led by its conservative majority, the high court slashed LGBTQ+ rights when it ruled that a Colorado-based wedding website designer has the right to refuse service to same-sex couples.

Shortly before the ruling dropped, The New Republic reported that an alleged website request cited in the case, from "Stewart and Mike," appears to be fake.

But legal experts say that whether or not the request was fabricated does not affect the ruling, and that the plaintiff in the case, Lorie Smith, had the right to bring the legal challenge regardless of the request.

"I don't think this fact had any bearing on the court's opinion," Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, told Insider.

Since the fake email didn't affect the Court's decision, the ruling will stand

Smith received the supposed request, from "Stewart and Mike," the day after the original complaint was filed in court, and Blackman said that the plaintiff would have needed to demonstrate injury, known as standing "when the case began."

"It doesn't much matter what happened later," Blackman said, adding that even if the email that was later cited by her lawyers is fraudulent, it won't result in the Supreme Court rehearing the case.

Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, agreed, telling NBC News this week that while she thought the court's ruling was "misguided in many ways," she believed Smith had standing.

Blackman also noted that Smith and her lawyers "had no reason to question the email" in the first place. He added that "had they [written] back, and inquired further, they could have opened themselves up to more liability. I don't think this issue will go anywhere."

Reached for comment, a representative for the Alliance for Defending Freedom, which brought the case on Smith's behalf, directed Insider to a statement posted to ADF's website.

"To say that Lorie Smith or ADF fabricated a request for a same-sex wedding website is a lie," the statement said. "It would make no sense to have fabricated a request because one wasn't required for the court to decide her case."

Phil Weiser, Colorado's attorney general, said in a statement that the high court's ruling "will permit businesses to turn away LGBTQ customers just by claiming that they sell expressive or artistic services."

"This deeply concerning opinion is far out-of-step with the will of the American people and American values," he added. "The opinion represents a radical departure from decades of Court precedent and fails to uphold the principle of 'Equal Justice for All' inscribed on the U.S. Supreme Court building."