Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

14 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

that the Establishment Clause even justifies, much less re-
quires,  a  refusal  to  extend  free  speech  rights  to  religious
speakers  who  participate  in  broad-reaching  government
programs  neutral  in  design.”    Rosenberger,  515  U. S.,  at 
839;  see  also  Good  News  Club,  533  U. S.,  at  112;  Lamb’s 
Chapel  v.  Center  Moriches  Union  Free  School  Dist.,  508 
U. S. 384 (1993).  Indeed, excluding religious messages from 
public forums that are open to other viewpoints is a “denial
of the right of free speech” indicating “hostility to religion” 
that  would  “undermine  the  very  neutrality  the  Establish-
ment Clause requires.” Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 845–846; 
see also Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 
66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 248 (1990) (plurality opinion). 
Although developments in City policy postdating the de-
nial of Shurtleff ’s application are not relevant to whether 
that act constituted a First Amendment violation, it should 
be emphasized that the City’s adoption of a written policy 
in October 2018 did not to convert the flag displays into gov-
ernment speech.  The policy’s principal provision specified 
that the City will not “display flags deemed to be inappro-
priate or offensive in nature or those supporting discrimi-
nation, prejudice, or religious” viewpoints.  App. in No. 20–
1158 (CA1), p. 570 (App).4  That provision did not identify a 

—————— 

4 The  policy  included  six  other  rules  specifying  that:  (1) flag  raisings 
must occur on “a normal business work day, generally between the hours 
of 10:00 am and 3:00 pm”; (2) flag raisings must be open to the public and 
“[g]uests must adhere to the City of Boston policy not to discriminate on
the basis of sex, race, religion, etc.”; (3) guests must deliver the “guest
flag” to City personnel before the raising and retrieve it after; (4) events
must be consistent with the City’s “sustainability” policy; (5) flags may
be lowered to comply with the U. S. Flag Code; and (6) flags will normally
be flown for 24 hours or fewer.  App. 570.  These criteria do not suggest
purposeful communication of a government message.  The policy also re-
served “sole and complete discretion” to refuse to fly any flag.  Id., at 569. 
But this reservation unbridled discretionary control over access to a gov-
ernment-owned  medium  of  expression  cannot  establish  that  a  speaker
permitted to speak through the medium is speaking for the government.