Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 39

4 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

how mistake-prone might an observer be and still qualify
as reasonable?  On what authority may courts exercise the
awesome power of judicial review to declare a duly enacted 
law unconstitutional thanks only to (admitted) errors about 
the  relevant  facts  or  law?  See  American  Atheists,  Inc.  v. 
Davenport,  637  F. 3d  1095,  1108–1110  (CA10  2010)  (Gor-
such, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). 

Ultimately,  Lemon  devolved  into  a  kind  of  children’s 
game.  Start with a Christmas scene, a menorah, or a flag.
Then pick your own “reasonable observer” avatar.  In this 
game,  the  avatar’s  default  settings  are  lazy,  uninformed 
about  history,  and  not  particularly  inclined  to  legal  re-
search.  His default mood is irritable.  To play, expose your
avatar to the display and ask for his reaction.  How does he 
feel about it?  Mind you:  Don’t ask him whether the pro-
posed display actually amounts to an establishment of reli-
gion.  Just ask him if he feels it “endorses” religion.  If so, 
game over.

Faced  with  such  a  malleable  test,  risk-averse  local  offi-
cials found themselves in an ironic bind.  To avoid Estab-
lishment Clause liability, they sometimes felt they had to
discriminate  against  religious  speech  and  suppress  reli-
gious exercises.  But those actions, in turn, only invited lia-
bility under other provisions of the First Amendment.  The 
hard truth is, Lemon’s abstract and ahistoric test put “[p]ol-
icymakers . . . in a vise between the Establishment Clause 
on one side and the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses 
on the other.”  Pinette, 515 U. S., at 767–768 (plurality opin-
ion).

Our case illustrates the problem.  The flags of many na-
tions bear religious symbols.  So do the flags of various pri-
vate groups.  Historically, Boston has allowed them all.  The 
city has even flown a flag with a cross nearly identical in 
size  to  the  one  on  petitioners’  flag.  It  was  a  banner  pre-
sented  by  a  secular  group  to  commemorate  the  Battle  of
Bunker Hill.  See Appendix, infra (photographs).  Yet when