ORLANDO, FL – Recently, municipalities across the nation have adopted varying approaches to displaying flags on government property after Liberty Counsel’s unanimous 2022 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston. In Shurtleff, Boston illegally censored Christian viewpoints by denying flying the Christian flag in a public forum open to “all applicants,” and so the High Court held when a city opens a public forum to private expression, it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint without violating the First Amendment.

On Easter Sunday, Hartford, Connecticut flew the Christian flag on its city hall flagpole while at least four other Connecticut towns displayed it as well. In 2023, Biddeford, Maine received two separate requests to fly the Christian flag and the LGBTQ+ “pride flag” from its city hall flagpole during the same time period. The city granted both requests flying each flag simultaneously with one flag on top for 15 days and then switching the other to the top for another 15 days. 

Across the country, Merced, California recently flew the Christian flag just before Easter in the town’s square alongside the U.S. and California flags after the city council voted to approve its raising.

However, the Merced City Council has since revised its flag policy closing the city’s flagpole to third-party public expression and making it solely a forum for government expression. The city council voted 4-3 to fly only official U.S. and government flags, and that any commemorative flag must come by the suggestion of a council member needing a majority vote from the council for it to be raised. Council members cited the decision as way to avoid “legal action” by maintaining “neutrality” because it is not “the role of government” to force people to believe an idea by flying it over the city.

In Shurtleff, the High Court ruled that government does not “own the expression” when it opens a forum to the public. Yet, other municipalities are also choosing the route of neutrality as a way to avoid any potential legal entanglements between free speech and government endorsement.

Last week, in Manchester, Vermont, the town’s select board voted 4-1 to reject a proposal to fly commemorative heritage flags, including the LGBTQ+ “pride flag,” and instead revised the city’s policy to fly only official U.S., state, and local municipal flags. Concerned about “viewpoint discrimination,” the select board made the decision to avoid potential lawsuits regarding government censorship and expression in the likelihood the council would allow some flag requests but deny others. Similarly, the Dumont, New Jersey City Council passed a new flag ordinance in February 2025 that limits flag displays to government-authorized flags only. The ordinance states that city flagpoles are for government expression and are not a forum for public expression.

In a completely divergent approach avoiding Shurtleff altogether, the state capitals of Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah have recently adopted LGBTQ+ symbolism into official government emblems flown on city flagpoles. Both cities are subject to state laws that limit flag displays on government property to narrow lists of official flags. 

In Boise, the city council voted 5-1 to designate the “pride flag” as an official city emblem alongside the existing city flag. The move is a response to Idaho’s House Bill 96, which restricts government flags only to official federal, state, and local flags, with few exceptions. By making the “pride flag” an official flag, the city is attempting to skirt the state law to legally display the flag. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador has urged Boise Mayor Laura McLean to reconsider her “defiance” of state law and remove the ”prohibited flags.”

Similarly, Salt Lake City adopted three new official city flags incorporating logos with designs representing LGBTQ+ and Juneteenth themes. This action was taken to circumvent Utah’s House Bill 77 governing flags on government property. By designating these flags as official city emblems, Salt Lake City potentially avoids violating the state’s law. 

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The clear message from the U.S. Supreme Court is that government cannot favor one viewpoint and censor another in a public forum. Municipalities can approve a commemorative emblem like the Christian flag without it being attributed as government speech. However, municipalities like Boise and Salt Lake City embracing a contentious ideological viewpoint as government expression raises potential First Amendment implications, especially when these flags are an attempt to skirt state restrictions. Ideological and contentious political flags do not belong in official government speech.”

For more information on Shurtleff v. City of Boston, visit www.LC.org/flag.

Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.