• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

May 2, 2022 by Michael Peabody 1 Comment

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program. Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

The Court found that the city had created a public forum when it allowed groups to fly their flags from the third flagpole and that the city could not then discriminate against speakers based on their viewpoint. Boston’s program, in place for many years, had approved “hundreds of requests” for various flags ranging from flags honoring first responders to Pride flags. None were denied until 2017 when a group called Camp Constitution asked to fly a Christian flag.

In an opinion authored by the soon-to-retire Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that because it was clear the flag program conveyed the group’s views rather than the government’s views. Therefore, refusing to allow the group to raise a Christian flag discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

The majority opinion analyzed the flag request in light of history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government exercised control over speech. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch in a concurrence objected to the use of the test and said that the question should have been “whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.”

Picture of Bunker Hill Flag and Christian FlagJustice Gorsuch and Thomas submitted yet another concurring opinion, saying that the “real problem” is that Boston admitted that it refused to fly a Christian flag but allowed a similar-looking secular flag displaying a cross to commemorate the Battle of Bunker Hill because the Christian flag would “violate the Establishment Clause.” They expressed concern that the Lemon test was inadequate to address issues where a law serves both a secular and religious purpose, or how to define “excessive entanglement” between church and state.

Under the Lemon test, described in the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, there are three tests for whether a law passes Establishment Clause muster. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Wrote Gorsuch, “Ultimately, Lemon devolved into a kind of children’s game. Start with a Christmas scene, a menorah, or a flag. Then pick your own ‘reasonable observe’ avatar. In this game, the avatar’s default settings are lazy, uniformed about history, and not particularly inclined to legal research. His default mood is irritable. To play, expose your avatar to the display and ask for his reaction. How does is feel about it? Mind you: Don’t ask him whether the proposed display actually amounts to an establishment of religion. Just ask him if he feels it ‘endorses’ religion. If so, game over.” (Italics in original.)

Gorsuch says that Boston then decided to “err on the safe side and reject” the Christian flag. “As it turns out, that route only invited years of litigation and a unanimous adverse decision because no government may discriminate against religious speech in a public forum. To avoid a spurious First Amendment problem, Boston wound up inviting a real one. Call it a Lemon trade.”

The Court overturned the District Court’s opinion, affirmed by the First Circuit, that the use of the third flagpole amounted to government speech.

 

Case:  Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022)

Filed Under: Church and State, Constitution, Free Speech, Supreme Court

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Janet N says

    May 2, 2022 at 4:31 pm

    What happened to separation of church and state? How is this not an endorsement of religion?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

DepositPhotos - Disinformation Governance Board

Biden admin announces “Disinformation Governance Board”

But as the government continues to pull the strings by asking private companies to curtail freedom of speech it increasingly becomes an actor in unconstitutionally curtailing freedom of speech.

Random Quote

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

— Robert H. Jackson

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0