Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

16 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

speech.  Rosenberger,  515  U. S.,  at  829;  see  also  Perry  Ed. 
Assn.  v.  Perry  Local  Educators’  Assn.,  460  U. S.  37,  49 
(1983) (“Implicit in the concept of the nonpublic forum is the
right to make distinctions in access on the basis of subject 
matter and speaker identity”).  Had the City restricted use 
of the flagpoles to these subject matters, it could have relied
on  the  forum’s  topical  limitations  to  deny  applications  to 
host events.  But it could not have employed viewpoint-dis-
criminatory criteria to bar otherwise-eligible speakers from
expressing their own views on those subjects. 

On this record, however, the only viable inference is that
the City had no policy restricting access to the forum apart
from the modest access conditions articulated in the appli-
cation materials.  Having created a forum with those char-
acteristics, the City could not reject Shurtleff ’s application 
on account of the religious viewpoint he intended to express.
For that reason, I agree with the Court’s ultimate conclu-
sion and concur in the judgment.