Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. ET AL. v. 
HALLECK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 17–1702.  Argued February 25, 2019—Decided June 17, 2019 

New  York  state  law  requires  cable  operators  to  set  aside  channels  on 
their cable systems for public access.  Those channels are operated by 
the cable operator unless the local government chooses to itself oper-
ate  the  channels  or  designates  a  private  entity  to  operate  the  chan-
nels.    New  York  City  (the  City)  has  designated  a  private  nonprofit 
corporation, petitioner Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), to 
operate the public access channels on Time Warner’s cable system in 
Manhattan.    Respondents  DeeDee  Halleck  and  Jesus  Papoleto 
Melendez produced a film critical of MNN to be aired on MNN’s pub-
lic access channels.  MNN televised the film.  MNN later suspended 
Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities.  The pro-
ducers  sued,  claiming  that  MNN  violated  their  First  Amendment 
free-speech rights when it restricted their access to the public access 
channels  because  of  the  content  of  their  film.    The  District  Court 
dismissed the claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and 
therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its edito-
rial  discretion.    Reversing  in  relevant  part,  the  Second  Circuit  con-
cluded  that  MNN  is  a  state  actor  subject  to  First  Amendment  con-
straints. 

Held: MNN is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.  Pp. 5–

16. 

(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only 
governmental,  not  private,  abridgment  of  speech.    See,  e.g.,  Denver 
Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 
737.  This Court’s state-action doctrine distinguishes the government 
from individuals and private entities.  Pp. 5–14. 

(1) A  private  entity  may  qualify  as  a  state  actor  when,  as  rele-