Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

Syllabus 

98, 112.  Boston concedes that it denied petitioners’ request out of Es-
tablishment  Clause  concerns,  solely  because  the  proposed  flag  “pro-
mot[ed] a specific religion.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 155a.  In light of the 
Court’s government-speech holding, Boston’s refusal to allow petition-
ers  to  raise  their  flag  because  of  its  religious  viewpoint  violated  the
Free Speech Clause.  Pp. 12–13. 

986 F. 3d 78, reversed and remanded. 

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  SOTOMAYOR,  KAGAN,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ.,  joined.  KA-
VANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion.  ALITO, J., filed an opinion con-
curring  in  the  judgment,  in  which  THOMAS  and  GORSUCH, JJ.,  joined.
GORSUCH,  J.,  filed  an  opinion  concurring  in  the  judgment,  in  which 
THOMAS, J., joined.