Shurtleff v. City of Bos.

• Decision Date: 02 May 2022
• Docket Number: 20-1800
• Citation: 142 S.Ct. 1583
• Parties: Harold SHURTLEFF, et al., Petitioners v. CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

142 S.Ct. 1583

Harold SHURTLEFF, et al., Petitioners

v.CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, et al.

No. 20-1800

Supreme Court of the United States.

Argued January 18, 2022

Decided May 2, 2022

Mathew Staver, Orlando, FL, for petitioners.

Sopan Joshi for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting reversal.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Washington, DC, for respondents.

Mathew D. Staver, Counsel of Record, Anita L. Staver, Horatio G. Mihet, Roger K. Gannam, Daniel J. Schmid, Liberty Counsel, Orlando, FL, for petitioners.

Adam N. Cederbaum, Susan M. Weise, Robert S. Arcangeli, City of Boston Law Department, One City Hall Square, Boston, MA, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Counsel of Record, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, Samuel L. Brenner, Deanna Barkett Fitzgerald, Thanithia Billings, Ropes & Gray LLP, Prudential Tower, Boston, MA, for respondents.

Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.

When the government encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va. , 515 U.S. 819, 828–830, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views. After all, the government must be able to "promote a program" or "espouse a policy" in order to function. Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. , 576 U.S. 200, 208, 135 S.Ct. 2239, 192 L.Ed.2d 274 (2015). The line between a forum for private expression and the government's own speech is important, but not always clear.

This case concerns a flagpole outside Boston City Hall. For years, Boston has allowed private groups to request use of the flagpole to raise flags of their choosing. As part of this program, Boston approved hundreds of requests to raise dozens of different flags. The city did not deny a single request to raise a flag until, in 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a Christian flag. Boston refused. At that time, Boston admits, it had no written policy limiting use of the flagpole based on the content of a flag. The parties dispute whether, on these facts, Boston reserved the pole to fly flags that communicate governmental messages, or instead opened the flagpole for citizens to express their own views. If the former, Boston is free to choose the flags it flies without the constraints of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. If the latter, the Free Speech Clause prevents Boston from refusing a flag based on its viewpoint.

We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston's refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint "abridg[ed]" their "freedom of speech." U. S. Const., Amdt. I.

I

A

The flagpole at issue stands at the entrance of Boston City Hall. See Appendix, infra . Built in the late 1960s, Boston City Hall is a raw concrete structure, an example of the brutalist style. Critics of the day heralded it as a public building that "articulates its functions" with "strength, dignity, grace, and even glamor." J. Conti, A New City Hall: Boston's Boost for Urban Renewal, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 12, 1969, p. 14. (The design has since proved somewhat more controversial. See, e.g. , E. Mason, Boston City Hall Named World's Ugliest Building, Boston Herald (Nov. 15, 2008), https://www.bostonherald.com/2008/11/15/boston-city-hall-named-worlds-ugliest-building.) More to the point, Boston City Hall sits on City Hall Plaza, a 7-acre expanse paved with New England brick. Inspired by open public spaces like the Piazza del Campo in Siena, the plaza was designed to be " ‘Boston's fairground,’ " a "public gathering spac[e]" for the people. N. DeCosta-Klipa, Why Is Boston City Hall the Way It Is? Boston.com (July 25, 2018), https://www.boston.com/news/history/2018/07/25/boston-city-hall-brutalism.

On the plaza, near City Hall's entrance, stand three 83-foot flagpoles. Boston flies the American flag from the first pole (along with a banner honoring prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action). From the second, it flies the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And from the third, it usually (but not always) flies Boston's flag—a sketch of the "City on a Hill" encircled by a ring against a blue backdrop.

Boston makes City Hall Plaza available to the public for events. Boston acknowledges that this means the plaza is a "public forum." Brief for Respondents 27. The city's policy is, "[w]here possible," "to accommodate all applicants seeking to take advantage of the City of Boston's public forums," including the plaza and the area at the flagpoles’ base. App. to Pet. for Cert. 133a, 137a.

For years, since at least 2005, the city has allowed groups to hold flag-raising ceremonies on the plaza. Participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third flagpole (in place of the city's flag) and fly it for the duration of the event, typically a couple of hours. Most ceremonies have involved the flags of other countries—from Albania to Venezuela—marking the national holidays of Bostonians’ many countries of origin. But several flag raisings have been associated with other kinds of groups or causes, such as Pride Week, emergency medical service workers, and a community bank. All told, between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved about 50 unique flags, raised at 284 ceremonies. Boston has no record of refusing a request before the events that gave rise to this case. We turn now to those events.

B

In July 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to hold a flagraising 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 organization wished to raise what it described as the "Christian 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 Department 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 Gregory T. Rooney, hereafter Rooney deposition). The commissioner 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 Boston and the commissioner of its Property Management Department (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 (C.A.1 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 groups’ flags from City Hall's third pole amounted to government speech. See 2020 WL 555248, *5, ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, –––– (Mass., Feb. 4, 2020). Hence, the city acted within its constitutional authority in declining to raise Camp Constitution's flag. Id., at ––––, ––––, 2020 WL 555248, at *3, *5. The District Court therefore granted summary judgment for Boston. The First Circuit affirmed. See 986 F.3d 78 (2021).

Shurtleff and Camp Constitution next petitioned this Court for certiorari. We agreed to decide whether the flags Boston allows groups to fly express government speech, and whether Boston could, consistent with the Free Speech Clause, deny petitioners’ flag-raising request.

II

A

The first and basic question we must answer is whether Boston's flag-raising program constitutes government speech. If so, Boston may refuse flags based on viewpoint.

The First Amendment's Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum , 555 U.S. 460, 467–469, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009). 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. See Walker , 576 U.S. at 207–208, 135 S.Ct. 2239. That must be true for government to work. 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. The Constitution therefore relies first and foremost on the ballot box, not on rules against viewpoint discrimination, to check the government when it speaks. See Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth , 529 U.S. 217, 235, 120 S.Ct. 1346, 146 L.Ed.2d 193 (2000).

The boundary between government speech and private expression can blur when, as here, a government invites the people to participate in a program. In those situations, when does government-public engagement transmit the government's own message? And when does it instead create a forum for the expression of private speakers’ views?

In answering these questions, we conduct a holistic inquiry designed to determine whether the government intends to speak for itself or to regulate private expression. Our review is not mechanical; it is...