Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

20  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

is not a private entity that ventured into the marketplace 
and found itself subject to government regulation.  It was 
asked  to  do  a  job  by  the  government  and  compensated 
accordingly.  If it does not want to do that job anymore, it 
can  stop  (subject,  like  any  other  entity,  to  its  contractual 
obligations).    But  as  long  as  MNN  continues  to  wield  the 
power  it  was  given  by  the  government,  it  stands  in  the 
government’s  shoes  and  must  abide  by  the  First  Amend-
ment like any other government actor. 

IV 
  This is not a case about bigger governments and smaller 
individuals,  ante,  at  16;  it  is  a  case  about  principals  and 
agents.  New York City opened up a public forum on public-
access  channels  in  which  it  has  a  property  interest.    It 
asked MNN to run that public forum, and MNN accepted 
the  job.    That  makes  MNN  subject  to  the  First  Amend-
ment,  just  as  if  the  City  had  decided  to  run  the  public 
forum itself.   
  While  the  majority  emphasizes  that  its  decision  is  nar-
row and factbound, ante, at 15, that does not make it any 
less misguided.    It  is  crucial  that the  Court  does  not con-
tinue  to  ignore  the  reality,  fully  recognized  by  our  prece-
dents, that private actors who have been delegated consti-
this  one  should  be 
like 
tutional 
accountable to the Constitution’s demands.  I respectfully 
dissent. 

responsibilities