On Tuesday (Jan. 18), the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in听Shurtleff v. Boston, a case that asks the court to hold that government officials may not exclude religious expression from the public square. At issue is whether the city of Boston can exclude a community group from flying its flag in front of Boston City Hall because the flag features a Latin cross.
For many years, Boston听has sponsored a program giving private citizens the opportunity听to fly flags representing community groups.听A wide variety of groups, including the Chinese Progressive Association and Boston Pride, have participated.听Boston has never denied an application for the community flag program until the group Camp Constitution applied to fly its flag 鈥� a white and blue flag with a red cross.听
A Boston city official told Camp Constitution that 鈥� as a government institution 鈥� the city could not fly a religious flag on its flagpole.听
Notre Dame Law 91视频鈥檚听听filed an in the case to ensure that government actors 鈥� like the city of Boston 鈥� may not create benefits, opportunities or platforms that exclude religious believers.
Religious Liberty Initiative interim director , the John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, said religious voices deserve a place in the public square and, in fact, 鈥淏oston has flown many flags with religious symbols previously, including the Turkish听flag and the Bunker Hill flag, which looks a lot like Camp Constitution鈥檚 flag.鈥�
鈥淢ost days, the city of Boston flies its own flag,鈥� Garnett pointed out, 鈥渨hich says (in Latin), 鈥楳ay God be with us as he was with our fathers.鈥欌��
Boston said the First Amendment鈥檚 provision prohibiting the establishment of religion prohibits it from flying a religious flag, but Garnett argued Boston has that backward.听
鈥淭he First Amendment also protects both the free exercise of religion and free speech,鈥� she said.听鈥淎nd the court has made clear that when the government opens a forum for private individuals and groups to speak, these provisions prohibit the exclusion of religious speech.听Our Constitution welcomes and protects the speech of religious organizations, and our nation has long celebrated it.鈥�
, supervising attorney of the Notre Dame Law 91视频鈥檚 Religious Liberty Clinic, added that the law does not require cities to create opportunities for speech like Boston鈥檚 flag program 鈥� only that they extend any opportunity to religious and non-religious speakers alike.
鈥淏oston wants to have it both ways. It has invited citizens to celebrate their own private causes on city property, but now it wants to control which causes its citizens wish to celebrate,鈥� Meiser said. 鈥淭he city can鈥檛 do that. Boston is under no obligation to invite private groups to fly their flags on city flagpoles. But it chose to do so, and now it must extend that invitation to religious believers on the same terms as everyone else.鈥澨�
Garnett said the Shurtleff case听offers the opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify that religious voices are welcome in the public square and that the nation and communities are enriched by them.听
鈥淭his is important because, all too frequently, the government excludes them because of a mistaken understanding of what the Constitution demands and requires,鈥� she said.
Established in 2020, the Notre Dame Law 91视频 Religious Liberty Initiative promotes and defends religious freedom for people of all faiths through scholarship, events and the Law 91视频鈥檚 Religious Liberty Clinic. The initiative protects the freedom of individuals to hold religious beliefs as well as their right to exercise and express those beliefs and to live according to them.
听
Contact: Nicole Stelle Garnett, 574-631-3091, ngarnett@nd.edu; John Meiser, 574-631-3880, jmeiser@nd.edu