Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 26

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

company’s  agreement  to  reserve  such  channels  “to  the 
reservation  of  a  public  easement,  or  a  dedication  of  land 
for streets and parks, as part of a municipality’s approval 
of a subdivision of land.”  Denver Area, 518 U. S., at 760–
761  (joined  by  Stevens  and  Souter,  JJ.).    And  Justice 
Kennedy observed not only that an easement would be an 
appropriate  analogy,  id.,  at  793–794  (opinion  concurring 
in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in 
part, joined by GINSBURG, J.), but also that “[p]ublic access 
channels meet the definition of a public forum,” id., at 791, 
“even  though  they  operate  over  property  to  which  the 
cable operator holds title,” id., at 792; see also id., at 792–
793 (noting that the entire cable system’s existence stems 
from  the  municipality’s  decision  to  grant  the  franchise).  
What  those  five  Justices  suggested  in  1996  remains  true 
today. 
‘bun-
  “A  common 
dle of sticks’—a  collection  of  individual  rights  which,  in 
certain  combinations,  constitute  property.”    United  States 
v. Craft, 535 U. S. 274, 278 (2002).  Rights to exclude and 
to use are two of the most crucial sticks in the bundle.  See 
id., at 283.  “State law determines . . . which sticks are in a 
person’s  bundle,”  id.,  at  278,  and  therefore  defining  prop-
erty itself is a state-law exercise.4  As for whether there is 
a  sufficient  property  interest  to  trigger  First  Amendment 
forum analysis, related precedents show that there is. 
  As noted above, there is no disputing that Time Warner 
owns the wires themselves.  See Turner, 512 U. S., at 628.  
If  the  wires  were  a  road,  it  would  be  easy  to  define  the 
public’s right to walk on it as an easement.  See, e.g., In re 
India  Street,  29  N. Y.  2d  97,  100–103,  272  N. E  2d  518, 
—————— 

idiom  describes  property  as  a 

4 The parties have not pointed this Court to any New York law defini-
tively  establishing  the  status  of  the  channels.    But  even  if  there  were 
uncertainty about the status of the channels under New York law, that 
would not be a reason to resolve the case against respondents (plaintiffs 
below) at the motion to dismiss stage.  See infra, at 12, n. 9, 14.