There is a lot of well-meaning advice against retirement, often offered in the context of war by people who are not on the front lines themselves. Yet when it comes to the courtroom battle is currently taking place on a flagpole in Boston’s Town Hall Square, the opposite sentiment, as expressed by Norman Vincent Peale, is worth considering: “Part of the happiness of life is not about fighting battles, but about avoiding them. A masterful retreat is in itself a victory.

In this case, retirement means ending the policy that allows public use of a City Hall flagpole. Given the legal entanglement on freedom of expression issues, the mast created for Boston — and could create for other cities and government entities if the Supreme Court rules against the city — it might be wise for Mayor Michelle Wu to end the policy now and negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff.

Under current policy, Boston has allowed a wide variety of flags to be flown in City Hall Plaza. Over time, this has included everything from flags celebrating Boston Pride and Juneteenth to flags of other countries. Indeed, from 2005 to 2017, the city approved 284 consecutive applications.

Then, in September 2017, the city refused to let Harold Shurtleff, a conservative activist and director of a private group, Camp Constitution, hoist a flag featuring a red cross inside a blue box – called a Christian flag. The group sued, and a federal appeals court sided with the city. However, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, and that’s when, as Globe columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr wrote, “an interesting thing happened: the Biden administration and the ACLU supported Shurtleff.”

And the justices of the Supreme Court also seem to be leaning in this direction.

The city argued that raising the Christian flag would give the impression that the government is sponsoring religious speech. But the group said the city’s snub violated its First Amendment rights. In its brief, the group argued that the city’s application form designates the masts as one of Boston’s “public forums” open to “all applicants” for private speech. So why is the mast not open to these particular candidates? As Justice Department attorney Sopan Joshi argued, “The city has some discretion, but that probably means that if they allow a group to raise a Black Lives Matter flag, they probably should be able to. to raise a Proud Boys flag. I mean, that’s exactly what the First Amendment requires.

The Supreme Court justices seem to agree. As The New York Times reported, “Judges Across the Ideological Spectrum. . . seemed ready to rule that the city had violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights. Some of the judges also appeared to be telegraphing a message to Boston to fix the mess created by the policy. “It was a mistake,” Judge Elena Kagan said of the city’s approach. “And why couldn’t people fix this mistake?” Judge Stephen Breyer added: “Can’t this be settled?”

The program is on a temporary hiatus and no final decision on its fate has been made, according to Rob Arcangeli, the company’s assistant attorney for the city of Boston. If the program is revived, he said, it would be in accordance with any guidance set out in a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

The city could end the practice for good. But according to Arcangeli, Boston can’t just end it and then ask the court to dismiss the case because the suit seeks damages. The city also seems reluctant to abandon the masthead policy entirely, believing there is a way to adjust the program so that it “retains discretion over the views expressed on its masthead,” Arcangeli said.

But a ruling against Boston, depending on its scope, could make it harder for cities across the country to maintain the separation of church and state. Does the city of Boston want to create this risk? In this case, retirement seems the best option.

Editorials represent the opinions of the Editorial Board of The Boston Globe. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.