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?

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.