Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

company  town.    See  Terry  v.  Adams,  345  U. S.  461,  468–
470  (1953)  (elections);  Marsh  v.  Alabama,  326  U. S.  501, 
505–509  (1946)  (company  town);  Smith  v.  Allwright,  321 
U. S.  649,  662–666  (1944)  (elections);  Nixon  v.  Condon, 
286  U. S.  73,  84–89  (1932)  (elections).1    The  Court  has 
ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that cate-
gory,  including,  for  example:  running  sports  associations 
and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating 
nursing  homes,  providing  special  education,  representing 
indigent  criminal  defendants,  resolving  private  disputes, 
and  supplying  electricity.    See  American  Mfrs.  Mut.  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Sullivan,  526  U. S.  40,  55–57  (1999)  (insurance 
payments);  National  Collegiate  Athletic  Assn.  v.  Tar-
kanian,  488  U. S.  179,  197,  n. 18  (1988)  (college  sports); 
San  Francisco  Arts  &  Athletics,  Inc.  v.  United  States 
Olympic  Comm.,  483  U. S.  522,  544–545  (1987)  (amateur 
sports);  Blum,  457  U. S.,  at  1011–1012  (nursing  home); 
Rendell-Baker,  457  U. S.,  at  842  (special  education);  Polk 
County  v.  Dodson,  454  U. S.  312,  318–319  (1981)  (public 
defender);  Flagg  Bros.,  436  U. S.,  at  157–163  (private 
dispute  resolution);  Jackson,  419  U. S.,  at  352–354  (elec-
tric service). 
  The relevant function in this case is operation of public 
access  channels  on  a  cable  system.    That  function  has  
not  traditionally  and  exclusively  been  performed  by  
government. 
  Since the 1970s, when public access channels became a 
regular feature on cable systems, a variety of private and 
public actors have operated public access channels, includ-

—————— 

1 Relatedly, this Court has recognized that a private entity may, un-
der  certain  circumstances,  be  deemed  a  state  actor  when  the  govern-
ment  has  outsourced  one  of  its  constitutional  obligations  to  a  private 
entity.    In  West  v.  Atkins,  for  example,  the  State  was  constitutionally 
obligated  to  provide  medical  care  to  prison  inmates.    487  U. S.  42,  56 
(1988).  That scenario is not present here because the government has 
no such obligation to operate public access channels.