Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception.  It 
has no record of denying a request until Shurtleff ’s.  Boston 
acknowledges it “hadn’t spent a lot of time really thinking
about”  its  flag-raising  practices  until  this  case.    App.  in 
No. 20–1158 (CA1), at 140 (Rooney deposition).  True to its 
word, the city had nothing—no written policies or clear in-
ternal  guidance—about  what  flags  groups  could  fly  and
what those flags would communicate.

Compare the extent of Boston’s control over flag raisings 
with the degree of government involvement in our most rel-
evant precedents.  In Summum, we emphasized that Pleas-
ant Grove City always selected which monuments it would 
place  in  its  park  (whether  or  not  the  government  funded
those  monuments),  and  it  typically  took  ownership  over 
them.  555  U. S.,  at  472–473.    In  Walker,  a  state  board 
“maintain[ed] direct control” over license plate designs by 
“actively” reviewing every proposal and rejecting at least a
dozen.  576 U. S., at 213.  Boston has no comparable record. 
The facts of this case are much closer to Matal v. Tam. 
There,  we  held  that  trademarks  were  not  government
speech because the Patent and Trademark Office registered 
all  manner  of  marks  and  normally  did  not  consider  their 
viewpoint,  except  occasionally  to  turn  away  marks  it
deemed “offensive.”  582 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 14, 
22).  Boston’s come-one-come-all attitude—except, that  is, 
for Camp Constitution’s religious flag—is similar. 

Boston  could  easily  have  done  more  to  make  clear  it 
wished to speak for itself by raising flags.  Other cities’ flag-
flying policies support our conclusion.  The City of San Jose,
California, for example, provides in writing that its “ ‘flag-
poles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expres-
sion  by  the  public,’ ”  and  lists  approved  flags  that  may  be 
flown “ ‘as an expression of the City’s official sentiments.’ ”  
See  Brief  for  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  et  al.  as 
Amici Curiae 18.