1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:12,840
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court seems primed to rule against Boston for

3
00:00:12,960 --> 00:00:16,200
Speaker 1: refusing to allow an organization to fly a Christian flag

4
00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:19,880
Speaker 1: in front of city Hall. Justice Is across the ideological

5
00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:24,720
Speaker 1: spectrum suggested that Boston had created a public forum rather

6
00:00:24,800 --> 00:00:29,200
Speaker 1: than conveying government speech. Here are Justice Is, Samuel Alito

7
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:32,920
Speaker 1: and Elena Kagan. But when you say anybody can speak

8
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:38,000
Speaker 1: by putting up a flag with these few exceptions, are

9
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:41,800
Speaker 1: you not creating a forum for private speech rather than

10
00:00:41,840 --> 00:00:47,240
Speaker 1: speaking on uh, speaking your own mind. A program that

11
00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:53,160
Speaker 1: basically now says and and and previously we welcome all

12
00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:59,800
Speaker 1: comers except for the most reprehensible, discriminatory speech and religious

13
00:00:59,800 --> 00:01:03,200
Speaker 1: See that's what this program is. And why should we

14
00:01:03,400 --> 00:01:07,520
Speaker 1: understand that to be government speech to say everything's good

15
00:01:07,920 --> 00:01:11,679
Speaker 1: except religion? And several of the justices pointed out that

16
00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:14,160
Speaker 1: it would be easy for the city to avoid having

17
00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:18,080
Speaker 1: to fly any and all flags by exercising more control

18
00:01:18,160 --> 00:01:21,959
Speaker 1: over the process. Here's Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The City

19
00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:25,600
Speaker 1: of Boston sits down, asks what's going to be expressed,

20
00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:27,760
Speaker 1: and says, yes, this is an idea that Boston can

21
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:31,559
Speaker 1: get behind and a government official participates in the flag raising,

22
00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:35,600
Speaker 1: participates in the ceremony, communicating that yes, Boston is happy

23
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:41,080
Speaker 1: to celebrate and communicate pride in um juneteenths, but no,

24
00:01:41,480 --> 00:01:43,760
Speaker 1: Boston is not going to participate in the flag raising

25
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:46,840
Speaker 1: for the proud voice. My guest is first Amendment expert

26
00:01:46,959 --> 00:01:50,720
Speaker 1: Eugene Volk, a professor at u c l A Law School. Eugene,

27
00:01:50,720 --> 00:01:54,240
Speaker 1: what's the central issue here? So, the city of Boston

28
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:58,040
Speaker 1: has flag poles, as it's usual with city flag poles,

29
00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:03,040
Speaker 1: that usually flies governments, American flag, state flag, city flags,

30
00:02:03,160 --> 00:02:07,440
Speaker 1: but sometimes the city allows people to put up their

31
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:10,720
Speaker 1: own flags, and it's usually flags of foreign countries, and

32
00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:14,400
Speaker 1: the city says that's because it's a way of recognizing

33
00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:17,040
Speaker 1: the national origin of the many people who live in

34
00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:20,160
Speaker 1: Boston from all over the world. But sometimes it's also

35
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:23,800
Speaker 1: flags related to events commemorations, let's say in the like

36
00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:27,799
Speaker 1: uh and also occasionally, for example of Pride flag gave

37
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:32,240
Speaker 1: Pride flag was hoisted as well. So the question that

38
00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:35,400
Speaker 1: the court is facing is does it have to at

39
00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:39,880
Speaker 1: that point except really all proposed flags on the theory

40
00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:43,280
Speaker 1: that it's created a limited public forum where it can't

41
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:47,639
Speaker 1: exclude flags, for example, because they're religious the particular claimant

42
00:02:47,639 --> 00:02:51,440
Speaker 1: here wanted to put up a Christian flag, or whether

43
00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:54,360
Speaker 1: there's no public forum. And this is all government speech.

44
00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:57,200
Speaker 1: Even when the government puts up other people's flags, it's

45
00:02:57,280 --> 00:02:59,480
Speaker 1: endorsed in them. And then it gets that they can choose,

46
00:02:59,480 --> 00:03:01,280
Speaker 1: and it could say, you know, we don't want to

47
00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:04,520
Speaker 1: endorse Christian flag, we don't want to endorse some other flag,

48
00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:08,320
Speaker 1: and the like. Occasionally we might fly some flag me

49
00:03:08,480 --> 00:03:12,000
Speaker 1: or maybe in honor of a visiting dignitary or uh

50
00:03:12,040 --> 00:03:15,519
Speaker 1: to mark some some important event or whatever else. But

51
00:03:15,960 --> 00:03:18,720
Speaker 1: it's up to us to decide that, just like when

52
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:21,400
Speaker 1: we decide whether to accept a monument for placing in

53
00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:23,520
Speaker 1: a park. There has been a precedent on the subject

54
00:03:23,560 --> 00:03:27,519
Speaker 1: from UH some years ago. We they can choose and

55
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:29,440
Speaker 1: we say, you know, some monuments we don't want, other

56
00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:32,239
Speaker 1: monuments we do want. So everybody agrees the city could

57
00:03:32,320 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 1: do that. The question is whether the city did do

58
00:03:34,520 --> 00:03:37,520
Speaker 1: that here or whether it took such a laws their attitudes,

59
00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:39,880
Speaker 1: like we put up pretty much everything apparently that never

60
00:03:40,120 --> 00:03:44,200
Speaker 1: rejected some other flag before that. It shows that between

61
00:03:44,240 --> 00:03:46,840
Speaker 1: that and the way that it's framed its policies. It

62
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:50,680
Speaker 1: shows that it deliberately opened up a limited public form.

63
00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:52,960
Speaker 1: So I think the decision is going to end up

64
00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:55,920
Speaker 1: not saying much about what can be allowed with regard

65
00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:59,240
Speaker 1: to cities and flags, and more about just how the

66
00:03:59,360 --> 00:04:02,680
Speaker 1: particular details of the city's decision should be interpreted. As

67
00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:07,240
Speaker 1: a legal bath, the city argues that flying this flag

68
00:04:07,240 --> 00:04:12,560
Speaker 1: would amount to a government endorsement of religion. And you know,

69
00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 1: when people look at those flagpoles, they assume that that's

70
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:20,080
Speaker 1: the city of Boston. They don't assume that the third

71
00:04:20,120 --> 00:04:22,880
Speaker 1: poll is a separate organization has nothing to do with

72
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:26,480
Speaker 1: the city. Well, there are too answers to One is

73
00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:30,440
Speaker 1: that this question of government endorsement ties in very directly

74
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:33,000
Speaker 1: to this broader question that I mentioned, which is is

75
00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:36,000
Speaker 1: this a limited public forum or is this government speech?

76
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:38,640
Speaker 1: Because the Supreme Court has made clear that in a

77
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:42,640
Speaker 1: limited public forum, religious speakers are equally free to participate,

78
00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 1: in part because the very fact that this is an

79
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:50,679
Speaker 1: public forum open to all viewpoints means the government isn't endorsing.

80
00:04:51,200 --> 00:04:55,960
Speaker 1: The government doesn't endorse any particular view when it merely

81
00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:59,160
Speaker 1: complies with the subligation of viewpoint neutrals. On the other end,

82
00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:02,720
Speaker 1: if this is seen as woman's speech, then yes, by definition,

83
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:05,680
Speaker 1: when the government says something, it's presumably endorsing it in

84
00:05:05,760 --> 00:05:08,600
Speaker 1: at least some measure, and therefore should be entitled to say, well,

85
00:05:08,600 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 1: we don't want to endorse religions. Now, let me also

86
00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:13,680
Speaker 1: suggest so that I think that as a factual matter,

87
00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:15,240
Speaker 1: And this is not something that came up in the

88
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:19,080
Speaker 1: arguments much, but I think I think it's true as

89
00:05:19,120 --> 00:05:22,520
Speaker 1: a factual matter. Let's say somebody's walking by these flags

90
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:26,839
Speaker 1: and he sees the flag with a star and crest,

91
00:05:27,080 --> 00:05:29,840
Speaker 1: and he knows and and color green. He knows those

92
00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:33,600
Speaker 1: are Muslim symbols. So he says, oh, wait a minute,

93
00:05:33,640 --> 00:05:40,280
Speaker 1: wait a minute, maybe the city is endorsing Islam. So

94
00:05:40,279 --> 00:05:43,200
Speaker 1: so what do we think about that? Well, the flag

95
00:05:43,279 --> 00:05:44,920
Speaker 1: I just described happens to be the flag of the

96
00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:50,440
Speaker 1: nation of Pakistan, unsurprisingly, because Pakistan is an overwhelmingly muslimination,

97
00:05:50,520 --> 00:05:54,280
Speaker 1: so does use, like many musliminations, Islamic symbolism. So presumably

98
00:05:54,320 --> 00:05:57,040
Speaker 1: the person would then call up the city if he's

99
00:05:57,120 --> 00:06:00,359
Speaker 1: really upset by the say how dare you endorse Islam?

100
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:02,200
Speaker 1: And I think the city would say no, no, no, no,

101
00:06:02,240 --> 00:06:05,360
Speaker 1: that's the flag of Pakistan. We're not endorsing Islam. We're

102
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:10,719
Speaker 1: just showing respect to people in Boston who are from Pakistan. Likewise,

103
00:06:10,760 --> 00:06:13,520
Speaker 1: I think if somebody sees a Christian flag flne first

104
00:06:13,520 --> 00:06:14,840
Speaker 1: of all, they might say, wait a minute, that might

105
00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:16,360
Speaker 1: be the flag of some country if they know of

106
00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:20,320
Speaker 1: this practice because some countries flags that many countries flags

107
00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:24,000
Speaker 1: do indeed have crosses them, um, because those because of

108
00:06:24,040 --> 00:06:27,560
Speaker 1: the Christian history of those countries. Um. But if the

109
00:06:27,600 --> 00:06:29,599
Speaker 1: person sort of says no, no, no, no, I know

110
00:06:29,720 --> 00:06:31,800
Speaker 1: that's not a country flag, so it calls up the city,

111
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:36,080
Speaker 1: and the city says says, oh, well, no, no, this

112
00:06:36,120 --> 00:06:39,120
Speaker 1: is a limited public forum. We're not endorsing it. We

113
00:06:39,279 --> 00:06:41,599
Speaker 1: just have to accept it. See the Supreme Court decision.

114
00:06:42,360 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 1: So one way or the other, I expect most people

115
00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:49,320
Speaker 1: looking at those flags wouldn't wouldn't pay much attention to them.

116
00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:51,880
Speaker 1: To the extent they do, they would probably assume it's

117
00:06:51,920 --> 00:06:54,479
Speaker 1: some foreign countries flag. They just don't happen to know it.

118
00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:57,120
Speaker 1: And if they don't think of that, then if they

119
00:06:57,160 --> 00:06:58,920
Speaker 1: do call up the city, which I think would be

120
00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:02,120
Speaker 1: the reasonable thing to do, it you think there's something, something,

121
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:05,000
Speaker 1: something bad a foot there, then there will be it

122
00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:07,760
Speaker 1: will be explained to them what's going on, uh, that

123
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,480
Speaker 1: this isn't the city's endorsement of the religious message. So

124
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:14,200
Speaker 1: I think it's a practical matter that's concerned about endorsement

125
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:17,880
Speaker 1: is overstated. But as a legal matter, it maps very

126
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:20,080
Speaker 1: closely on this question of whether it's a limited public

127
00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:23,400
Speaker 1: form or government speech. And if government speech, then the

128
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:26,560
Speaker 1: government is entitled to avoid flying something in order to

129
00:07:27,040 --> 00:07:29,600
Speaker 1: avoid endorsing it. Whereas it's it's a limited public forum,

130
00:07:29,640 --> 00:07:32,080
Speaker 1: it's a different matter. What do you think the decision

131
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:35,280
Speaker 1: will be? Will it be a unanimous decision? You know,

132
00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 1: it's really hard to tell. I hate making predictions about that.

133
00:07:38,520 --> 00:07:40,840
Speaker 1: I don't think there's anything really clear from moral argument

134
00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:44,240
Speaker 1: as to how the justices will end up interpreting this

135
00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:48,600
Speaker 1: particular program. Again, I think there's broad acknowledgement on the

136
00:07:48,600 --> 00:07:51,200
Speaker 1: court's part night just from oural arguments from past decisions

137
00:07:51,200 --> 00:07:53,400
Speaker 1: that if it's a limited public form, of course they

138
00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:56,800
Speaker 1: can't exclude speech based on viewpoint or generally speaking, based

139
00:07:56,800 --> 00:07:59,680
Speaker 1: on its religiosity. There's a broad acknowledgement as if it's

140
00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:01,960
Speaker 1: government and speech. When the government gets to pick and choose.

141
00:08:02,240 --> 00:08:04,440
Speaker 1: The real dispute, if there will be much dispute on

142
00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:07,800
Speaker 1: the court, will be how do we classify this particular program.

143
00:08:07,800 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 1: Maybe it will be split by four or six three,

144
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:12,960
Speaker 1: Maybe it'll lend up being nine zero. Which way exactly

145
00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:16,160
Speaker 1: it goes, I don't know. So the way the city

146
00:08:16,160 --> 00:08:19,120
Speaker 1: of Boston has it set up right now, would they

147
00:08:19,160 --> 00:08:22,400
Speaker 1: have to fly a flag with a swastika on it?

148
00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:25,360
Speaker 1: If the answer is that the city set up a

149
00:08:25,400 --> 00:08:28,760
Speaker 1: limited public forum, the answer is definitely. In a limited

150
00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:32,600
Speaker 1: public forum, the city can't discriminate based on viewpoint. It

151
00:08:32,640 --> 00:08:36,000
Speaker 1: can't discriminate against pro Nazi views, it can't discriminate against

152
00:08:36,040 --> 00:08:40,240
Speaker 1: pro communist views, it can't discriminate against pro Johattest view.

153
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:43,079
Speaker 1: So if the city set up this limited public forum,

154
00:08:43,160 --> 00:08:45,640
Speaker 1: then then that cats that would have to fly the flag,

155
00:08:45,880 --> 00:08:49,839
Speaker 1: which again suggests that if the court says yes in

156
00:08:49,880 --> 00:08:53,120
Speaker 1: this case the things the city did lead to the

157
00:08:53,160 --> 00:08:56,200
Speaker 1: creation of a limited public forum, then from now on,

158
00:08:56,520 --> 00:09:00,480
Speaker 1: all cities, including I would imaginement especially Boston, will say

159
00:09:00,520 --> 00:09:03,200
Speaker 1: we're gonna try very very hard to avoid creating this

160
00:09:03,240 --> 00:09:06,600
Speaker 1: limited public form. We're either going to abandon the practice

161
00:09:06,679 --> 00:09:09,959
Speaker 1: applying other people's flags or at least make sure it's

162
00:09:10,040 --> 00:09:14,280
Speaker 1: sharply sharply limited, whether in the formal rules or if

163
00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:17,679
Speaker 1: it's set up in kind of the discretionary nature of

164
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:21,240
Speaker 1: the decision making process where they routinely say, look, you know,

165
00:09:21,320 --> 00:09:23,960
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, we we don't want your flag. What do

166
00:09:23,960 --> 00:09:26,160
Speaker 1: you think the decision will be? Will it be a

167
00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:29,680
Speaker 1: unanimous decision? You know, it's really hard to tell. I

168
00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:32,240
Speaker 1: hate making predictions about that. I don't think there's anything

169
00:09:32,280 --> 00:09:35,240
Speaker 1: really clear from moral argument as to how the justices

170
00:09:35,240 --> 00:09:39,040
Speaker 1: will end up interpreting this particular program. Again, I think

171
00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:42,319
Speaker 1: there's broad acknowledgement on the Court's part, not just from

172
00:09:42,320 --> 00:09:45,000
Speaker 1: oural argument from past decisions that if it's a limited

173
00:09:45,000 --> 00:09:47,679
Speaker 1: public form of course, they can't exclude speech based on

174
00:09:47,800 --> 00:09:51,079
Speaker 1: viewpoint or generally speaking, based on its religiosity. There's a

175
00:09:51,080 --> 00:09:53,760
Speaker 1: broad acknowledgement as if it's government speech and the government

176
00:09:53,760 --> 00:09:56,200
Speaker 1: gets to pick and choose. The real dispute, if there

177
00:09:56,200 --> 00:09:58,240
Speaker 1: will be much dispute on the court, will be how

178
00:09:58,280 --> 00:10:01,200
Speaker 1: do we classify this particular program. Maybe it will be

179
00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:03,840
Speaker 1: split five four or six three, Maybe it'll end up

180
00:10:03,840 --> 00:10:06,440
Speaker 1: being nine zero. Which way exactly it goes, I don't know,

181
00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:10,480
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure it matters that terribly much, because again,

182
00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:12,760
Speaker 1: one way or the other, I think there'll be plenty

183
00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:15,680
Speaker 1: of room for cities going forward to set up the

184
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:18,560
Speaker 1: flagpole programs if they have any such in a way

185
00:10:18,640 --> 00:10:20,880
Speaker 1: that allows them to pick and choose. That's exactly what

186
00:10:20,920 --> 00:10:22,600
Speaker 1: they will do. And I doubt there will be a

187
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,520
Speaker 1: lot of presidential significance to this decision either, just because

188
00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:28,920
Speaker 1: again I think it will turn on the very peculiar

189
00:10:28,960 --> 00:10:33,000
Speaker 1: details of this particular programs. In past cases, has the

190
00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:37,000
Speaker 1: Court drawn a clear line between government speech and private speech.

191
00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:40,440
Speaker 1: Not a super clear line by any means. There is

192
00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:42,840
Speaker 1: some gray, and the clearest example of that is the

193
00:10:42,840 --> 00:10:46,280
Speaker 1: Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate design case, where the

194
00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:49,800
Speaker 1: court split sharply split five four on the question and

195
00:10:50,080 --> 00:10:52,720
Speaker 1: maybe got wrong. It's concluded that a program where the

196
00:10:52,720 --> 00:10:57,000
Speaker 1: state of Texas allowed hundreds of designs for license plates

197
00:10:57,000 --> 00:10:59,080
Speaker 1: that could be submitted by various groups, that that was

198
00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:02,760
Speaker 1: still government speech because traditions that license plate designs were

199
00:11:02,800 --> 00:11:06,640
Speaker 1: set up by the government, and because then a public

200
00:11:06,640 --> 00:11:09,800
Speaker 1: perceptions based in that tradition, and because it exercised some

201
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:13,079
Speaker 1: control over those So that was a close case. But

202
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:15,160
Speaker 1: there are other cases which weren't closed at all. So,

203
00:11:15,280 --> 00:11:20,240
Speaker 1: for example, the government was trying to prohibit derogatory trademark

204
00:11:20,400 --> 00:11:24,040
Speaker 1: mentality camp As. The case involving stand called the plants

205
00:11:24,280 --> 00:11:28,280
Speaker 1: and the government, so that's a racially derogatory term. And

206
00:11:28,520 --> 00:11:33,240
Speaker 1: the court unanimously said, well, this isn't government speech. This

207
00:11:33,320 --> 00:11:36,040
Speaker 1: is the government promoting private speech in the form of

208
00:11:36,080 --> 00:11:39,400
Speaker 1: private trademarks, and therefore it can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

209
00:11:39,440 --> 00:11:43,040
Speaker 1: That was unanimous. Likewise, in the Sumon case, so one

210
00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:46,880
Speaker 1: involved in monuments, the court nearly unanimously said, yeah, when

211
00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:50,200
Speaker 1: the city is deciding which monuments to accept for a

212
00:11:50,280 --> 00:11:54,040
Speaker 1: public park, of course that's government speech. So you've got

213
00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:57,120
Speaker 1: pretty clear things on both sides of the line. And then,

214
00:11:57,120 --> 00:12:00,200
Speaker 1: of course occasionally with most lines you get some ray

215
00:12:00,240 --> 00:12:03,920
Speaker 1: areas right next, but not a vastimous race. Thanks Eugene.

216
00:12:04,280 --> 00:12:06,760
Speaker 1: That's Eugene Vault of u c l A Law School,

217
00:12:07,040 --> 00:12:09,320
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

218
00:12:09,640 --> 00:12:12,199
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg