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

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

1 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1800 
_________________ 

HAROLD SHURTLEFF, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY 
OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL. 

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

[May 2, 2022]

 JUSTICE  ALITO,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in the judgment. 

I agree with the Court’s conclusion that Boston (hereafter 
City) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom
of speech when it rejected Camp Constitution’s application 
to fly what it characterized as a “Christian flag.”  But I can-
not go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case
in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s percep-
tion of who is speaking, and the extent to which the govern-
ment has exercised control over speech—that our decision 
in Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 
576  U. S.  200  (2015), derived  from  Pleasant  Grove  City  v. 
Summum, 555 U. S. 460 (2009).  See ante, at 6–12.  As the 
Court  now  recognizes,  those  cases  did  not  set  forth  a  test
that always and everywhere applies when the government
claims  that  its  actions  are  immune  to  First  Amendment 
challenge  under  the  government-speech  doctrine.    And 
treating those factors as a test obscures the real question in 
government-speech  cases:  whether  the  government  is 
speaking instead of regulating private expression. 

I 
The government-speech doctrine recognizes that the Free
Speech  Clause  of  the  First  Amendment  “restricts  govern-
ment  regulation  of  private  speech”  but  “does  not  regulate