Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

15 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

message the City intended to express; it simply codified the
City’s  prior  exclusion  of  speakers  expressing  a  “religious 
viewpoint” and extended it to messages deemed “offensive,” 
despite  the  “bedrock  First  Amendment  principle”  that 
“[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses
ideas that offend.”  Tam, 582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 
1–2).

In briefing before this Court, counsel for the City argued
that despite all appearances to the contrary, the City actu-
ally did intend to express a message through the flag-rais-
ing  program:  The  City’s  support  for  “the  diverse  national
heritage of the City’s population.”  Brief for Respondents 19.
All other flag raisings, the City claims, occurred “in connec-
tion  with  some  publicly  designated  date  of  observance.” 
Ibid.    This  argument  is  a  transparent  attempt  to  reverse
engineer a governmental message from facts about the flag
raisings that occurred.  It is true that many of the flag rais-
ings  from  2007  to  2015  celebrated  nationalities.    App.  to
Pet. for Cert. 173a–187a.  But these events were conducted 
by  private  organizations  to  express  their  own  support  for 
the relevant national communities.  Neither the City’s ap-
plication guidance nor the 2018 written policy singled out a
connection  with  a  nationality  commemoration  as  a  condi-
tion  of  access  to  the  flagpoles.  The  City  never  cited  this 
purported requirement in its rejection of the applications it 
denied.  And the City approved flags that had nothing to do 
with  nationality  or  official  holidays,  such  as  the  “Metro
Credit Union Flag Raising” mentioned by the Court.

Even if the City had reserved the flagpoles for nationality 
commemorations  and  official  holidays,  that  would  only 
mean that the City had reserved the flagpoles “for certain
groups or for the discussion of certain topics” and created a
nonpublic  forum,  not  that  it  had  engaged  in  government 

—————— 
Instead, such discretionary authority is a hallmark of a standardless sys-
tem of censorship.