Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

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

5 

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

the petitioners offered their flag, the city flinched.  Perhaps
it worried:  Would the assigned judge’s imagined “reasona-
ble observer” bother to learn about its generous policy for 
secular  groups?  Would  this  observer  take  the  trouble  to 
consult the long tradition in this country allowing compa-
rable displays?  Or would he turn out to be an uninformed 
passerby offended by the seeming incongruity of a new flag 
flying  beside  those  of  the  city,  State,  and  Nation?    Who 
could tell.  Better to err on the safe side and reject the peti-
tioners’ flag.  As it turned out, though, that route only in-
vited years of litigation and a unanimous adverse decision
because no government may discriminate against religious 
speech in a public forum.  To avoid a spurious First Amend-
ment problem, Boston wound up inviting a real one.  Call it 
a Lemon trade.4 

* 
While it is easy to see how Lemon led to a strange world
in  which  local  governments  have  sometimes  violated  the 
First Amendment in the name of protecting it, less clear is
why this state of affairs still persists.  Lemon has long since 

—————— 

4 It seems possible, too, that these spurious Establishment Clause con-
cerns embolden government officials to treat religion with hostility even 
when  they  don’t  rely  on  Lemon  by  name.  Sometimes  colleges  seek  to
prevent students from engaging in religious speech, labeling expressions
of faith “fighting words.”  See Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U. S. ___, 
___–___ (2021) (slip op., at 1–3).  Certain public transit systems that sell
advertising space on trains and buses ban religious messages.  See Arch-
diocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Author-
ity, 589 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., respecting denial of cer-
tiorari) (slip op., at 1–2); Northeastern Pa. Freethought Soc. v. County of 
Lackawanna Transit Sys., 938 F. 3d 424, 428–431 (CA3 2019).  And some 
governments seek to exclude religious groups from using public facilities 
or designations available to others.  See InterVarsity Christian Fellow-
ship/USA v. University of Iowa, 5 F. 4th 855, 860–862 (CA8 2021); Bronx 
Household of Faith v. Board of Ed., 750 F. 3d 184, 192 (CA2 2014).  All 
of  these  trades  resulted  in  less  First  Amendment  protection  and  more
needless litigation.