On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hand down a decision in a case out of Colorado that could permit artistically oriented businesses to decline service to LGBTQ customers.

On June 29, however, The New Republic reported that part of the evidence submitted in the lawsuit of 303 Creative v. Elenis references a purportedly gay customer who sought the services of plaintiff Lorie Smith, but who may not exist.

Smith is the owner of 303 Creative, a graphic design company. She seeks to expand her portfolio to wedding websites, but says her Christian beliefs do not permit her to design websites for same-sex weddings. Although she has not refused service yet, nor has Colorado taken action against her, she challenged the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act’s (CADA) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.

Her lawyers included a two-page message Smith allegedly received through her company site on Sept. 21, 2016. “Stewart” wrote that he was marrying his fiancé, “Mike,” the next year and “would love some design work done.” He added he “might also” want a website.

Smith’s lawsuit made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On the day before the justices’ expected decision, Melissa Gira Grant of The New Republic reported that she had contacted “Stewart” using the phone number included in Smith’s filing. Stewart, which is his real name, said he had never submitted the inquiry and that someone apparently “falsified” his information.

Colorado Politics contacted Stewart using the email address also in the filing, where he confirmed The New Republic’s account.

“I have been happily married (to a woman) for the last 15 years. I have never contacted Lorie Smith about making a website,” he said on Thursday. “The first I have heard about my name and contact details being referenced in this case was yesterday when Melissa reached out.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Smith, responded to questions about the message’s authenticity by saying Smith “had no reason to believe the request to celebrate a same-sex wedding submitted to her website wasn’t a true request.” The ADF did not elaborate on the origin of the message.

Prior to reaching the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit decided, 2-1, that Smith could be compelled to create websites for same-sex weddings given Colorado’s important interest in eradicating discrimination in the marketplace.

There was no mention of Stewart during oral arguments or in the 103-page ruling. No one asserted that Smith had actually denied service to an LGBTQ customer. The 10th Circuit agreed Smith was able to mount a “pre-enforcement” challenge to CADA under the assumption that she would face consequences if she followed through on her promise not to build a website announcing a same-sex wedding.

In her various court filings, Smith did mention she had not responded to the online request from Stewart because she was not yet designing wedding websites.

“However, the request highlights her need for relief from this Court,” her lawyers wrote in March 2017. “If she were in the wedding industry, that request would have placed Lorie in the impossible position of choosing between compliance with CADA and exercising her fundamental rights.”

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, which argued against Smith in defense of CADA, had no comment on Stewart’s assertion he did not send the website inquiry. A spokesperson for Attorney General Phil Weiser pointed out that Colorado had previously cast doubt on the legitimacy of the submission.

Smith did not “take any steps to verify that a genuine prospective customer submitted the form,” Weiser’s office wrote in its brief to the Supreme Court.

Chris Wolpert, the clerk for the 10th Circuit, told Colorado Politics the appellate court’s rules state that lawyers, by signing and submitting legal briefs, are certifying to the best of their knowledge that their “factual contentions or denials are supported in the record.”

“In general, the court has the discretion to initiate disciplinary action and/or impose sanctions sua sponte,” meaning on its own, Wolpert said.

The circuit’s rules also allow for discipline if a lawyer’s conduct violates the code of professional conduct adopted by the state Supreme Court. One such requirement is that lawyers not offer evidence known to be false.