Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
139 S. Ct. 1921
SCOTUS2019Background
- New York law requires cable operators to set aside channels for public access; local governments may operate them or designate private entities to do so.
- New York City designated Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), a private nonprofit, to operate Time Warner’s (Charter) public access channels in Manhattan.
- DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced a film critical of MNN, which MNN aired and later suspended the producers from MNN services; they sued alleging First Amendment violations.
- The District Court dismissed the First Amendment claim, finding MNN was not a state actor; the Second Circuit reversed in part, concluding MNN was a state actor operating a public forum.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding MNN is not a state actor under the state-action doctrine and thus not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion; the Court remanded for further proceedings on other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Halleck) | Defendant's Argument (MNN) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MNN is a state actor because it operates public access channels (traditional, exclusive public function test) | Operation of public access channels is a public function historically performed by government; MNN therefore exercises a traditional, exclusive public function | Operation of public access channels has long been performed by private and public actors; it is not a traditional, exclusive public function | Not a state actor: operating public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function under Jackson |
| Whether hosting a public forum for speech transforms a private operator into a state actor | Running an open public forum is a classic government function that triggers First Amendment limits | Merely providing a forum for speech is not an activity exclusively performed by government; Hudgens controls | Not a state actor: providing a forum alone does not convert a private entity into a state actor |
| Whether the City’s designation, contracts, funding, or regulation turn MNN into a state actor | City designation, heavy state regulation, and franchise terms mean MNN is carrying out governmental functions and should be treated as state actor | Government licensing, contracting, funding, or regulation do not by themselves convert private actors into state actors absent a traditional, exclusive public function | Not a state actor: designation/regulation/licensing do not convert MNN into state actor absent traditional public function (Jackson, Jackson-line precedents) |
| Whether the public access channels are City property so MNN is managing government property | The franchise and state rules create a public property interest (akin to an easement) in the channels; MNN administers City property and thus stands in City’s shoes | Record shows Time Warner owns the cable system and channels; City has no formal property interest in the channels | Not a state actor on this record: Court concluded City does not own or lease the channels and plaintiffs did not adequately allege a City property interest (case-specific finding) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (private company performing public-like services not automatically a state actor)
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (very few functions are traditionally exclusive public functions)
- Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (private property owner opening forum for speech is not a state actor)
- Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (analysis of public-access channels and forum doctrines)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (private contractor may be a state actor when performing delegated constitutional obligations)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (limitations on treating private entities as state actors)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522 (government charters/licenses do not by themselves create state action)
- American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (state regulation alone does not make private conduct state action)
- Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (limits on extending forum doctrine to private property)