Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 27

8 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

within the scope of their power to do so, they “are not speak-
ing as citizens for First Amendment purposes.”  Garcetti v. 
Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 421 (2006).  And because “speech”
requires  the  purposeful  communication  of  the  speaker’s 
own message, the message expressed must have been for-
mulated by a person with the power to determine what mes-
sages the government will communicate.  In short, the gov-
ernment  must 
to  be 
communicated” through official action.  Johanns, 544 U. S., 
at 562. 

the  overall  message 

“se[t] 

Government  speech  is  thus  the  purposeful  communica-
tion of a governmentally determined message by a person
exercising a power to speak for a government.  But not all 
governmental  activity  that  qualifies  as  “government 
speech” in this literal and factual sense is exempt from First 
Amendment scrutiny.  For although we have said that the
Free  Speech  Clause  “has  no  application”  when  a  govern-
ment  is  “engaging  in  [its]  own  expressive  conduct,”  Sum-
mum, 555 U. S., at 467, we have also recognized that “the
Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government’s 
speech”  under  certain  conditions,  as  when  a  “government 
seeks to compel private persons to convey the government’s 
speech.”  Walker,  576  U. S.,  at  208;  see  also  Wooley  v. 
Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 (1977); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. 
Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943). 

That  is  because  the  government-speech  doctrine  is  not
based on the view—which we have neither accepted nor re-
jected—that governmental entities have First Amendment
rights.  See United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 
539 U. S. 194, 210–211 (2003); Columbia Broadcasting Sys-
tem, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 
139, and n. 7 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring).2  Instead, the 
—————— 

2 The text of the First Amendment also seems to exclude the possibility
that the Federal Government has a constitutional right to speak, since it
prohibits “Congress” and other federal entities and actors from “abridg-
ing the freedom of speech.”  A different analysis might be called for in a