Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

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 BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. 
When  the  government  encourages  diverse  expression—
say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment
prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on
their viewpoint.  See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of 
Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–830 (1995).  But when the 
government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not 
demand  airtime  for  all  views.  After  all,  the  government
must be able to “promote a program” or “espouse a policy”
in order to function.  Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confed-
erate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 208 (2015).  The line be-
tween a forum for private expression and the government’s 
own speech is important, but not always clear.

This  case  concerns  a  flagpole  outside  Boston  City  Hall. 
For years, Boston has allowed private groups to request use 
of  the  flagpole  to  raise  flags  of  their  choosing.  As  part  of
this  program,  Boston  approved  hundreds  of  requests  to
raise dozens of different flags.  The city did not deny a single 
request to raise a flag until, in 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the
director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a