Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

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

11 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

Amendment principles apply.  And to avoid running afoul
of the prohibition on compelled speech, that alienation must
be voluntary.3 

This approach also explains the circumstances in which
we  have  concluded  that  the  government  is  not  speaking.
We have repeatedly held that the government-speech doc-
trine does not extend to private-party speech that is merely 
subsidized or otherwise facilitated by the government.  See, 
e.g., Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U. S. 533, 
542  (2001);  Board  of  Regents  of  Univ.  of  Wis.  System  v. 
Southworth,  529  U. S.  217,  229  (2000);  Rosenberger,  515 
U. S.,  at  833–834.  Facilitating  speech  by  private  persons
cannot  constitute  government  speech  unless  the  govern-
ment assigns a power to speak to those persons or appropri-
ates the products of their expressive activity to express its 
own message.  When the government’s role is limited to ap-
plying a standard of assessment to determine a speaker’s
eligibility  for  a  benefit,  the  government  is  regulating  pri-
vate speech, and ordinary First Amendment principles ap-
ply. Tam, 582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 13–14). 

For  analogous  reasons,  private-party  expression  in  any 
type of forum recognized by our precedents does not consti-
tute government speech.  A forum, by definition, is a space 

—————— 

3 The  place  of  Walker  within  this  framework  warrants  comment.    In 
that case, properly understood, the government claimed to have adopted 
specialty-license-plate designs submitted by private parties and actually
did “ow[n] the designs on its license plates,” Walker v. Texas Div., Sons 
of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 212 (2015).  But it was not 
obvious how designs such as “Rather Be Golfing” could possibly express 
a  government  message.    Id.,  at  222  (ALITO,  J.,  dissenting).    In  other 
words, although the private parties alienated control over the plate de-
signs,  the  government  did  not  have  any  purpose  to  communicate,  and 
instead  allowed  private  parties  to  use  personal  plates  to  communicate 
their  own  messages.    This  expansive  understanding  of  government
speech by adoption should be confined to government-issued IDs.  As we 
have  said,  Walker  “likely  marks  the  outer  bounds  of  the  government-
speech doctrine.”  Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 17).