Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

School, 533 U. S. 98, 106 (2001). 
  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  contexts  that  do  not  fall 
under  the  “forum”  rubric.    For  one,  there  are  contexts  in 
which  the  government  is  simply  engaging  in  its  own 
speech and thus has freedom to select the views it prefers.  
See, e.g., Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veter-
ans,  Inc.,  576  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2015)  (slip  op.,  at  6–7) 
(specialty license plates); Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 
555  U. S.  460,  467–469,  481  (2009)  (privately  donated 
permanent  monuments  in  a  public  park).1    In  addition, 
there  are  purely  private  spaces,  where  the  First  Amend-
ment  is  (as  relevant  here)  inapplicable.    The  First 
Amendment leaves a private store owner (or homeowner), 
for  example,  free  to  remove  a  customer  (or  dinner  guest) 
for  expressing  unwanted  views.    See,  e.g.,  Lloyd  Corp.  v. 
Tanner, 407 U. S. 551, 569–570 (1972).  In these settings, 
there  is  no  First  Amendment  right  against  viewpoint 
discrimination. 
  Here,  respondents  alleged  viewpoint  discrimination.  
App. 39.  So a key question in this case concerns what the 
Manhattan  public-access  channels  are:  a  public  forum  of 
some kind, in which a claim alleging viewpoint discrimina-
tion  would  be  cognizable,  or  something  else,  such  as  gov-
ernment speech or purely private property, where picking 
favored  viewpoints  is  appropriately  commonplace.2    Nei-
ther  MNN  nor  the  majority  suggests  that  this  is  an  in-
—————— 

1 That  does  not  mean  that no  restrictions  apply at  all  to  the  govern-
ment’s expression in such spaces, but it does mean that the government 
can  pick  and  choose  among different  views.    See  Walker,  576  U. S.,  at 
___, ___–___ (slip op., at 6, 17–18); Summum, 555 U. S., at 468. 

2 The channels are not, of course, a physical place.  Under the Court’s 
precedents, that makes no difference: Regardless of whether something 
“is  a  forum  more  in  a  metaphysical  than  in  a  spatial  or  geographic 
sense,  . . .  the  same  principles  are  applicable.”    Rosenberger  v.  Rector 
and  Visitors  of  Univ.  of  Va.,  515  U. S.  819,  830  (1995)  (treating  “Stu-
dent Activities Fund” as the forum at issue and citing cases in which a 
school’s mail system and a charity drive were the relevant forums).