Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum — Stevens, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurs with the Court’s judgment that Pleasant Grove City’s refusal to permit Summum’s permanent monument is permissible as government speech. He argues that the government‑speech doctrine, though recently developed, is appropriate here and that recognizing permanent displays as government speech does not give the government a free license to convey offensive or partisan messages because other constitutional safeguards, such as the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses, still apply. He notes that the doctrine has been of doubtful merit in prior cases. The opinion is joined by Justice Ginsburg and is accompanied by separate concurring opinions from Justices Souter, Scalia (joined by Thomas) and Breyer.