Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON 

Opinion of the Court 

raising event that September on City Hall Plaza.  The event 
would  “commemorate  the  civic  and  social  contributions  of 
the  Christian  community”  and  feature  remarks  by  local
clergy.  Id., at 130a–131a.  As part of the ceremony, the or-
ganization wished to raise what it described as the “Chris-
tian flag.”  Id., at 131a.  To the event application, Shurtleff 
attached a photo of the proposed flag: a red cross on a blue 
field against a white background.

The commissioner of Boston’s Property Management De-
partment said no.  The problem was “not the content of the
Christian flag,” but “the fact that it was the Christian flag 
or  [was]  called  the  Christian  flag.”    App.  in  No.  20–1158 
(CA1), at 212–213 (deposition of then-commissioner Greg-
ory T. Rooney, hereafter Rooney deposition).  The commis-
sioner worried that flying a religious flag at City Hall could 
violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and found 
no record of Boston ever having raised such a flag.  He told 
Shurtleff  that  Camp  Constitution  could  proceed  with  the
event if they would raise a different flag.  Needless to say, 
they did not want to do so. 

C 
Shurtleff and Camp Constitution (petitioners) sued Bos-
ton and the commissioner of its Property Management De-
partment (respondents).  Petitioners claimed that Boston’s 
refusal  to  let  them  raise  their  flag  violated,  among  other 
things, the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  They
asked for an immediate order requiring Boston to allow the
flag raising, but the District Court denied the request.  See 
337 F. Supp. 3d 66 (Mass. 2018), aff ’d, 928 F. 3d 166 (CA1
2019).  The parties engaged in discovery.  At its close, they
filed  cross-motions  for  summary  judgment.  The  parties
agreed to all relevant facts and submitted a joint statement 
setting them out.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 128a–160a.

On that record, the District Court held that flying private