Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: February 25, 2019
Decided: June 17, 2019
Outcome
Reversed in part and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Elena Kagan


Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 25, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.[1]

The case concerned the First Amendment's limitation on governmental restriction of free speech and public access television channels. On June 17, 2019, the court reversed in part and remanded the case. The court held the cable operator, Manhattan Neighborhood Network, "is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment." Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the 5-4 opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Click here for more information about the outcome.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: A public access station operated by the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) in New York City suspended two contributors from using the station's services and facilities for allegedly harassing and inciting violence against other MNN employees. The contributors then filed a lawsuit claiming that MNN was violating their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment only applies to state actors, and the district court ruled that MNN was not a state actor. The Second Circuit Court disagreed, ruling that MNN was a state actor.
  • The issue: Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting this Court's state actor tests and instead creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding—contrary to the Sixth and D.C. Circuits—that private entities operating public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes where the state has no control over the private entity's board or operations.[2]
  • The outcome: On June 17, 2019, the court reversed in part and remanded the case. The court held the cable operator, Manhattan Neighborhood Network, "is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment." Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the 5-4 opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan.[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 17, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case
    • February 25, 2019: Oral argument
    • October 12, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • June 21, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 9, 2018: Second Circuit affirmed part of the lower court's ruling, reversed part of the lower court's ruling, and remanded the case

    Background

    In August 2013, a public access station operated by the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) in New York City disciplined two of the station's contributors, Jesus Melendez and DeeDee Halleck, for allegedly harassing and inciting violence against other employees. Melendez and Halleck were suspended from using the station's services and facilities. They then filed a lawsuit claiming that MNN was violating their First Amendment rights.[5][6]

    The First Amendment only applies to state actors, and the district court ruled that MNN was not a state actor. The Second Circuit Court disagreed, ruling that New York City had "delegated to MNN the traditionally public function of administering and regulating speech in the public forum" of public access cable television, which made MNN a state actor.[5][6]

    MNN appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case on October 12, 2018.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    • 1. Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting this Court's state actor tests and instead creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability.
    • 2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding—contrary to the Sixth and D.C. Circuits—that private entities operating public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes where the state has no control over the private entity's board or operations.

    Outcome

    On June 17, 2019, the court reversed in part and remanded the case. The court held the cable operator, Manhattan Neighborhood Network, "is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment."[3]

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the 5-4 opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan.[3]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[3]

    “ We conclude that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. Moreover, a private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. In operating the public access channels, MNN is a private actor, not a state actor, and MNN therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[7] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.[3]

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[3]

    “ New York City (the City) secured a property interest in public-access television channels when it granted a cable franchise to a cable company. State regulations require those public-access channels to be made open to the public on terms that render them a public forum. The City contracted out the administration of that forum to a private organization, petitioner Manhattan Community Access Corporation (MNN). By accepting that agency relationship, MNN stepped into the City’s shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other.[7] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1702 Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck," accessed February 3, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1702 Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck," accessed February 3, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, decided June 17, 2019
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck," accessed February 3, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Cato.org, "Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck," December 11, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Oyez.org, "Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck," accessed February 4, 2019
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck&oldid=9117236"