Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

Opinion of the Court 

the most salient feature of this case. 

To  be  sure,  Boston  maintained  control  over  an  event’s 
date and time to avoid conflicts.  It maintained control over 
the  plaza’s  physical  premises,  presumably  to  avoid  chaos.
And it provided a hand crank so that groups could rig and
raise their chosen flags.  But it is Boston’s control over the 
flags’  content  and  meaning  that  here  is  key;  that  type  of  
control  would  indicate  that  Boston  meant  to  convey  the
flags’ messages.

On this issue, Boston’s record is thin.  Boston says that
all (or at least most) of the 50 unique flags it approved re-
flect particular city-approved values or views.  Flying flags 
associated  with  other  countries  celebrated  Bostonians’ 
many different national origins; flying other flags, Boston 
adds, was not “wholly unconnected” from a diversity mes-
sage or “some other day or cause the City or Commonwealth 
had already endorsed.”  Brief for Respondents 8, 35.  That 
may well be true of the Pride Flag raised annually to com-
memorate  Boston  Pride  Week.    See  Brief  for  Common-
wealth of Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 25–26 (cit-
ing reports that the then-mayor of Boston gave remarks as 
the Pride Flag was raised).  But it is more difficult to dis-
cern  a  connection  to  the  city  as  to,  say,  the  Metro  Credit
Union flag raising, a ceremony by a local community bank.
In  any  event,  we  do  not  settle  this  dispute  by  counting
noses—or, rather, counting flags.  That is so for several rea-
sons.  For one thing, Boston told the public that it sought
“to accommodate all applicants” who wished to hold events 
at  Boston’s  “public  forums,”  including  on  City  Hall  Plaza.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a.  The application form asked only 
for contact information and a brief description of the event, 
with proposed dates and times.  The city employee who han-
dled applications testified by deposition that he had previ-
ously  “never  requested  to  review  a  flag  or  requested
changes to a flag in connection with approval”; nor did he
even  see  flags  before  the  events.    Id.,  at  150a.  The  city’s