On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, as the editors of the New York Sun put it, “a Christian group may no longer be excluded from occasionally flying its banner on a municipal flagpole outside Boston’s city hall.” But the majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, seems unlikely to be the last word on questions relating to religious expression in public institutions.

Concurrences by three conservative justices make clear that the Court is far from united on the issue.

Justice Breyer’s opinion centers on the point that when “government encourages diverse expression,” or creates “a forum for debate” it cannot, under the First Amendment, discriminate “against speakers based on their viewpoint.”

To Justice Breyer, Boston’s city flagpoles are a forum. That finding contrasts with Boston’s view that the banners it permitted to wave on the municipal flagpole “reflect particular city-approved values or views.” While Justice Breyer observed that “may well be true of the Pride Flag raised annually to commemorate Boston Pride Week,” he found it “more difficult to discern a connection to the city” when a local bank, the Metro Credit Union, also held a flag-raising at city hall.

In the Boston opinion, Justice Breyer’s equanimity over the cause of religious freedom is plain. Boston’s “lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags” or their messages “leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech,” he wrote, yet “nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.” How is that not an invitation to defy the court’s ruling?

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.