“The flags flown reflected a dizzying and contradictory array of perspectives that cannot be understood to express the message of a single speaker,” Justice Alito wrote. The Boston program, he wrote, “cannot possibly constitute government speech.” “Government speech occurs if - but only if - a government purposefully expresses a message of its own through persons authorized to speak on its behalf, and in doing so, does not rely on a means that abridges private speech,” Justice Alito wrote. Instead of a three-factor test, Justice Alito wrote, courts should focus on a single question in deciding whether expression is government speech: “whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.” wrote that he agreed with the majority’s bottom line but not its rationale. In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel A. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Boston could not easily congratulate the Red Sox on a victory were the city powerless to decline to simultaneously transmit the views of disappointed Yankees fans.”Ĭhief Justice John G. “That must be true for government to work. “When the government wishes to state an opinion, to speak for the community, to formulate policies or to implement programs, it naturally chooses what to say and what not to say,” he wrote.
#THE GAY FLAG WALLPAPER FREE#
Justice Breyer stressed that governments must be free to take sides when they speak for themselves. “All told,” he wrote, “while the historical practice of flag flying at government buildings favors Boston, the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag railings as private, not government, speech - though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.” The third factor was “the most salient feature of this case,” Justice Breyer wrote, and it cut sharply against the city. The court should consider three factors in deciding whether a given message is government speech, Justice Breyer wrote: the history of the practice in question, whether observers were likely to believe that the messages reflected the government’s views and how much the government controlled the messages. “The city cannot generally open its flagpole to flags from private civic and social groups while excluding otherwise similar groups with religious views,” the administration’s brief said. Justice Breyer concluded that the Christian flag was private speech in a public forum and that the city’s refusal to let “Camp Constitution fly their flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”īoth the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union had filed supporting briefs siding with the Christian group’s position. When the government is speaking for itself, it is immune from First Amendment scrutiny. 20-1800, was whether the city had created a public forum by allowing private groups to use its flagpole or was conveying its own speech by choosing and endorsing the flags it approved. Breyer, writing for six members of the court, said the central question in the case, Shurtleff v.
It rejected only one, from Camp Constitution, which says it seeks “to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage.” The group’s application said it sought to raise a “Christian flag” for one hour at an event that would include “short speeches by some local clergy focusing on Boston’s history.” The flag bore the Latin cross.
In a 12-year period, the city approved 284 requests to raise flags on the third flagpole. One of the three flagpoles in front of the building, which ordinarily flies the flag of Boston, is occasionally made available to groups seeking to celebrate their backgrounds or to promote causes like gay pride. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that the City of Boston had violated the First Amendment when it refused to let a private group raise a Christian flag in front of its City Hall.