An odd coalition is backing a right-wing Christian in a case now before the US Supreme Court.
The Biden administration, the ACLU, the John Birch Society, and the Camp Constitution website all lined up against the City of Boston in a January 18 Supreme Court hearing.
Even some of the high court's embattled liberal justices seemed to be ready to side with the Christian right.
The case involves Harold Shurtleff, a former John Birch Society organizer who runs the Camp Constitution website, and the City of Boston, which owns the flagpole Shurtleff wanted to use to fly the "Christian flag."
While Christianity is a diverse religion and has no single, universally recognized flag, a white flag with a red cross in a blue canton is used by some Christian groups as a symbol of their faith.
The City of Boston owns three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall. One always displays the US flag, one the Massachusetts state flag, and the third usually displays the Boston city flag.
On occasion, however, the Boston city flag comes down and other flags take its place. Shurtleff asked the city to fly the Christian flag, but city officials denied his request. He then sued, charging discrimination against his religious beliefs. His case has now come to the US Supreme Court for adjudication.
Shurtleff uses his Camp Constitution website to deny the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol, allege that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, that COVID-19 vaccines don't work, and that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was carried out by US government agents.
Nevertheless, his lawsuit seems to have the backing of most — if not all — Supreme Court justices.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, for example, noted that Chinese and Cuban flags had flown outside City Hall. Why not Shurtleff's Christian flag? he asked.
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, representing Boston, said those flags were part of city policy that recognizes the heritage of Boston residents, not an endorsement of those regimes.
Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who suggested the decision to refuse Shurtleff's request was a simple mistake.
"Why is it that people have not been able to correct this mistake?" Kagan asked.
While it's clear that the City of Boston owns the flagpole in question, it's not clear what flying a flag on that pole means.
Boston says it can do whatever it wants with its own flagpole because flying flags there is an act of the city government. Shurtleff's lawyers — along with the ACLU and the Biden administration — say that the pole is a free-speech zone that should be open to all flags.
Boston's attorney, Hallward-Driemeier, conceded under questioning that if the flagpole is, indeed, a free-speech zone, then turning away some points of view and allowing others amounts to discrimination.
Boston has indicated it would change its policy if it loses the case to take more control of what flags can be flown.