Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK 

Opinion of the Court 

public access channels because of the content of their film. 
  MNN moved to dismiss the producers’ First Amendment 
claim  on  the  ground  that  MNN  is  not  a  state  actor  and 
therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions on 
its  editorial  discretion.    The  District  Court  agreed  with 
MNN  and  dismissed  the  producers’  First  Amendment 
claim. 
  The Second Circuit reversed in relevant part.  882 F. 3d 
300,  308  (2018).    In  the  majority  opinion  authored  by 
Judge  Newman  and  joined  by  Judge  Lohier,  the  court 
stated that the public access channels in Manhattan are a 
public  forum  for  purposes  of  the  First  Amendment.    Rea-
soning  that  “public  forums  are  usually  operated  by  gov-
ernments,” the court concluded that MNN is a state actor 
subject to First Amendment constraints.  Id., at 306–307.  
Judge Lohier added a concurring opinion, explaining that 
MNN  also  qualifies  as  a  state  actor  for  the  independent 
reason  that  “New  York  City  delegated  to  MNN  the  tradi-
tionally  public  function  of  administering  and  regulating 
speech  in  the  public  forum  of  Manhattan’s  public  access 
channels.”  Id., at 309. 
  Judge  Jacobs  dissented  in  relevant  part,  opining  that 
MNN  is  not  a  state  actor.    He  reasoned  that  a  private 
entity’s  operation  of  an  open  forum  for  speakers  does  not 
render the host entity a state actor.  Judge Jacobs further 
stated that the operation of public access channels is not a 
traditional, exclusive public function. 
  We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  disagreement  among 
the  Courts  of  Appeals  on  the  question  whether  private 
operators  of  public  access  cable  channels  are  state  actors 
subject  to  the  First  Amendment.    586  U. S.  __  (2018).  
Compare  882  F. 3d  300  (case  below),  with  Wilcher  v.  Ak-
ron,  498  F. 3d  516  (CA6  2007);  and  Alliance  for  Commu- 
nity Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995).