Only opinion for today (5/2/22) is Shurtleff v Boston.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined.
All 9 Justices concurred in the underlying judgement, but the 3 Justices not joining the main opinion would have taken a different route on getting to the judgement.
The underlying judgement is pretty much a no ■■■■■■■ brainer. That is why it got an easy 9 to 0 zero vote at the free speech friendly Supreme Court and should have gotten that judgement at both the District Court and Court of Appeals.
If you are allowing pride flags and every other flag that is brought forward, you cannot exclude a Christian flag. As the opinion mentions, Boston had never denied a flag request until Shurtleff’s.
The underlying Judgement is unquestionable correct.
Gorsuch’s concurrence regarding Lemon is unquestionably correct. The Supreme Court needs to flush Lemon down the toilet once and for all.
I also join with Alito’s concurrence, framing this as government speech versus government’s regulation of private speech.
While the majority reached the right result, it should have gone farther to ensure this type of bull ■■■■ doesn’t happen again.
The Supreme Court’s next opinion day will be Monday, May 16.