Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SHURTLEFF ET AL. v. CITY OF BOSTON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

No. 20–1800.  Argued January 18, 2022—Decided May 2, 2022 

Just outside the entrance to Boston City Hall, on City Hall Plaza, stand 
three flagpoles.  Boston flies the American flag from the first pole and 
the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the second.  Bos-
ton  usually  flies  the  city’s  own  flag  from  the  third  pole.  But  Boston 
has, for years, allowed groups to hold ceremonies on the plaza during
which participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third pole
in place of the city’s flag.  Between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved 
the raising of about 50 unique flags for 284 such ceremonies.  Most of 
these  flags  were  other  countries’,  but  some  were  associated  with 
groups or causes, such as the Pride Flag, a banner honoring emergency
medical  service  workers,  and  others.    In  2017,  Harold  Shurtleff,  the 
director of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to hold an 
event on the plaza to celebrate the civic and social contributions of the 
Christian  community;  as  part  of  that  ceremony,  he  wished  to  raise 
what he described as the “Christian flag.”  The commissioner of Bos-
ton’s  Property  Management  Department  worried  that  flying  a  reli-
gious  flag  at  City  Hall  could  violate  the  Establishment  Clause  and 
found no past instance of the city’s having raised such a flag.  He there-
fore told Shurtleff that the group could hold an event on the plaza but 
could not raise their flag during it.  Shurtleff and Camp Constitution 
(petitioners) sued, claiming that Boston’s refusal to let them raise their
flag violated, among other things, the First Amendment’s Free Speech 
Clause.  The District Court held that flying private groups’ flags from
City Hall’s third flagpole amounted to government speech, so Boston 
could  refuse  petitioners’  request  without  running  afoul  of  the  First 
Amendment.  The First Circuit affirmed.  This Court granted certiorari 
to decide whether the flags Boston allows others to fly express govern-
ment  speech,  and  whether  Boston  could,  consistent  with  the  Free