as expected, though the order was against the city, the court provides a blueprint to the city for how it can discriminate in the future...
Boston could easily have done more to make clear it wished to speak for itself by raising flags. Other cities’ flag- flying policies support our conclusion. The City of San Jose, California, for example, provides in writing that its “ ‘flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public,’ ” and lists approved flags that may be flown “ ‘as an expression of the City’s official sentiments.’ ” See Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 18.
All told, while the historical practice of flag flying at government buildings favors Boston, the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech— though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.
So, even though plaintiffs won the case, I seriously doubt they will be able to enjoy the win by exercising their rights.
It was the only time the city refused to fly a flag, having approved 284 requests from various countries, causes, businesses, and organizations between 2005 and 2017, the court said. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration had filed briefs supporting Camp Constitution in the case. - https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/05/02/metro/supreme-court-rules-boston-violated-first-amendment-rights-by-refusing-fly-christian-flag-city-hall-plaza/?event=event12