Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 36

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

1 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, 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  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  joins,

concurring in the judgment. 

The real problem in this case doesn’t stem from Boston’s 
mistake about the scope of the government speech doctrine 
or its error in applying our public forum precedents.  The 
trouble here runs deeper than that.  Boston candidly admits
that it refused to fly the petitioners’ flag while allowing a 
secular  group  to  fly  a  strikingly  similar  banner.    And  the 
city admits it did so for one reason and one reason only:  It 
thought displaying the petitioners’ flag would violate “ ‘the
[C]onstitution’s [E]stablishment [C]lause.’ ”  App. to Pet. for 
Cert.  157a;  see  also  id.,  at  153a–154a.  That  decision  led 
directly to this lawsuit, all the years of litigation that fol-
lowed, and the city’s loss today.  Not a single Member of the 
Court seeks to defend Boston’s view that a municipal policy 
allowing all groups to fly their flags, secular and religious 
alike, would offend the Establishment Clause. 

How did the city get it so wrong?  To be fair, at least some 
of  the  blame  belongs  here  and  traces  back  to  Lemon  v. 
Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971).  Issued during a “ ‘bygone 
era’ ” when this Court took a more freewheeling approach to
interpreting legal texts, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus 
Leader  Media,  588  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  8), 
Lemon sought to devise a one-size-fits-all test for resolving
Establishment Clause disputes.  That project bypassed any