June is finals month. After a long journey, multiple ups and downs, and a lot of hard work, merits are tested one last time and a winner is crowned. Students and NBA fans know this. Lawyers like me do, too: In one of its final opinions of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 303 Creative v. Elenis — holding that government can’t force people to say things they don’t believe. This is a win for free speech. And unlike an exam grade or NBA title, it’s a big win for all Americans.

But things were a little bumpy early on. Lorie Smith is a Denver-area graphic artist. She launched 303 Creative to love her neighbors while promoting causes close to her heart. Like most artists, Lorie works with all people but can’t express all messages. For Colorado officials, that was a problem. Lorie learned that officials would misuse state law to force her to say things about marriage she doesn’t believe if she were to start making wedding websites with marriage stories that she reported and wrote.

This is the norm in Colorado. For some years, state officials and others have been trying to punish cake artist Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, for refusing to create art inconsistent with his beliefs. Lorie feared the same punishment, so she faced a grueling choice: curb her business, change her beliefs, or challenge an unjust law. She chose to protect free speech both for herself and those who disagree with her. And it’s a good thing she did.

Now, the Supreme Court has held that the government can’t force Lorie to express things she doesn’t believe. The ruling protects all people — including those who disagree with Lorie’s views. As the opinion notes, the state of Colorado’s position “would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.” The ruling ensures that speakers—not the government—choose what they say.

But not everyone is cheering. Critics say this win will take us back to dark times in our nation’s past. That’s a lie. States will continue to apply public-accommodation laws to stop discrimination based on who someone is. The ruling protects only people speaking–people like Lorie who decide which projects to take based on what they will express, not who requests them. Lorie’s win ensures only that states do not misuse their laws to punish speakers they disagree with.

As our nation has matured, its commitment to free speech has enabled our most significant progress — from abolishing slavery and securing women’s right to vote to passing the Civil Rights Act and protecting equal opportunities for women and girls. Some may think these advances were inevitable, but those movements flourished because our nation refuses to coerce people whose speech the government disagrees with. Without the freedom to speak, we shutter diverse views, meaningful debate, and the condition for progress.