The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of Boston violated the First Amendment rights of a West Roxbury man by refusing to fly a Christian flag with a cross in City Hall Plaza.
In a ruling written by outgoing Justice Stephen Breyer, all nine members of the nation’s highest court agreed that the city should not have kept Harold Shurtleff’s flag off the pole that the city had agreed in the past could be used by a bank and recognize Gay Pride Week.
“We conclude that, overall, Boston did not make the raising and waving of flags by private groups a form of governmental speech,” Breyer wrote for the court. “That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to allow Shurtleff and Camp Constitution to raise their flag based on their ‘shorthand’ religious viewpoint[ed]” his “freedom of expression”. “
Shurtleff, who as head of Camp Constitution had argued in court documents that his group was denied a permit in 2017 to fly a Christian flag on one of three City Hall flagpoles in connection with an event. Shurtleff had lost in challenges in the US District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court sided solidly with him on Monday. According to the court, Shurtleff’s application was the only time the city had refused to fly a flag, having approved 284 applications from a variety of businesses and organizations between 2005 and 2017, the court said.
The court said that if the city had issued a flag policy that expressly endorsed the message printed on the flag, then it would have qualified as government speech, and the city could reject, or accept, applications for flags from those organizations that did. city explicitly supported.
“The first and basic question we must answer is whether Boston’s flag-raising program constitutes government speech. If so, Boston can reject flags based on point of view. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not prevent the government from refusing to express an opinion,” Breyer wrote. “That must be true for the government to work. Boston couldn’t easily congratulate the Red Sox on a win if the city couldn’t refuse to simulcast the views of disappointed Yankees fans.”
However, the court said, the city blocked Shurtleff because of the religious message his flag carried, and for no other reason.
“While the historical practice of flying flags on government buildings favors Boston, the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in flag selection or crafting of their messages leads us to classify flag-raising as private, non-government speech. , although nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies in the future,” Breyer wrote. “The city’s refusal to allow Shurtleff and Camp Constitution to fly their flag based on their religious views violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
John R. Ellement can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe. Gal Tziperman Lotan can be reached at [email protected] or 617-929-2043.
Reference-www.bostonglobe.com