Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 29

10 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

means that abridges the speech of persons acting in a pri-
vate capacity.  It is only then that “the Free Speech Clause 
has no application.”  Summum, 555 U. S., at 467. 

This framework explains the conditions under which gov-
ernment communication that relies on private parties can
constitute  government  speech.  Our  precedents  recognize 
two ways in which a government can speak using private
assistance.    First,  the  government  can  prospectively  “en-
lis[t]  private  entities  to  convey  its  own  message,”  Rosen-
berger, 515 U. S., at 833, by deputizing private persons as
its agents.  See Johanns, 544 U. S., at 560–562, and n. 4; 
Rust, 500 U. S., at 192–200.  In that kind of situation, pri-
vate persons assume a public or quasi-public capacity that
empowers them to speak on behalf of the government.  So 
long as this responsibility is voluntarily assumed, speech by 
a private party within the scope of his power to speak for 
the government constitutes government speech. 

Second,  the  government  can  “adop[t]”  a  medium  of  ex-
pression created by a private party and use it to express a 
government message.  Summum, 555 U. S., at 473–474.  In 
that circumstance, private parties are not deputized by the
government; instead a private person generates a medium 
of  expression  and  transfers  it  to  the  government.  Id.,  at 
472–474.  For the adopted expression to qualify as the gov-
ernment’s, the private party must alienate control over the 
medium of expression to the government.  And government
actors must put the medium to use to intentionally express 
a government message.  Compare id., at 473–475 (holding 
that a government adopted donated monument because it
“took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent 
display  in  a  park  that  it  owns  and  manages”),  with  Tam, 
582 U. S., at ___, ___–___ (slip op., at 5, 12–15) (no adoption 
occurred  because  governments  neither  produced  nor  took 
ownership of privately generated trademarks).  Otherwise, 
the government is simply providing a forum for private par-
ties  to  submit  their  own  productions  and  usual  First