Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

Syllabus 

Speech Clause, deny petitioners’ flag-raising request. 

Held: 1.  Boston’s  flag-raising  program  does  not  express  government 

speech.  Pp. 5–12.

(a) The Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from
declining to express a view.  See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 
U. S. 460, 467–469.  The government must be able to decide what to 
say and what not to say when it states an opinion, speaks for the com-
munity, formulates policies, or implements programs.  The boundary 
between government speech and private expression can blur when, as
here, the government invites the people to participate in a program.
In those situations, the Court conducts a holistic inquiry to determine
whether the government intends to speak for itself or, rather, to regu-
late private expression.  The Court’s cases have looked to several types
of evidence to guide the analysis, including: the history of the expres-
sion at issue; the public’s likely perception as to who (the government 
or a private person) is speaking; and the extent to which the govern-
ment has actively shaped or controlled the expression.  See Walker v. 
Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 209–213. 
Considering these indicia in Summum, the Court held that the mes-
sages of permanent monuments in a public park constituted govern-
ment  speech,  even  when  the  monuments  were  privately  funded  and 
donated.  See 555 U. S., at 470–473.  In Walker, the Court found that 
license plate designs proposed by private groups also amounted to gov-
ernment speech because, among other reasons, the State that issued 
the plates “maintain[ed] direct control over the messages conveyed” by 
“actively” reviewing designs and rejecting over a dozen proposals.  576 
U. S., at 213.  On the other hand, in Matal v. Tam, the Court concluded 
that trademarking words or symbols generated by private registrants 
did not amount to government speech because the Patent and Trade-
mark Office did not exercise sufficient control over the nature and con-
tent of those marks to convey a governmental message.  582 U. S.___, 
___.  Pp. 5–6.

(b) Applying this government-speech analysis here, the Court finds
that some evidence favors Boston, and other evidence favors Shurtleff. 
The history of flag flying, particularly at the seat of government, sup-
ports Boston.  Flags evolved as a way to symbolize communities and 
governments.  Not just the content of a flag, but also its presence and 
position  have  long  conveyed  important  messages  about  government. 
Flying a flag other than a government’s own can also convey a govern-
mental  message.    For  example,  another  country’s  flag  outside  Blair
House, across the street from the White House, signals that a foreign 
leader is visiting.  Consistent with this history, flags on Boston’s City
Hall Plaza usually convey the city’s messages.  Boston’s flag symbol-