Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

for speech (known as a public forum), the government may 
be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the 
government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers 
from  the  forum  on  the  basis  of  viewpoint,  or  sometimes 
even  on  the  basis  of  content.    See,  e.g.,  Southeastern  Pro-
motions,  Ltd.  v.  Conrad,  420  U. S.  546,  547,  555  (1975) 
(private theater leased to the city); Police Dept. of Chicago 
v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 93, 96 (1972) (sidewalks); Hague v. 
Committee  for  Industrial  Organization,  307  U. S.  496, 
515–516 (1939) (streets and parks). 
  By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for 
speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by 
the  First  Amendment  because  the  private  entity  is  not  a 
state actor.  The private entity may thus exercise editorial 
discretion  over  the  speech  and  speakers  in  the  forum.  
This  Court  so  ruled  in  its  1976  decision  in  Hudgens  v. 
NLRB.    There,  the  Court  held  that  a  shopping  center 
owner  is  not  a  state  actor  subject  to  First  Amendment 
requirements  such  as  the  public  forum  doctrine.    424 
U. S.,  at  520–521;  see  also  Lloyd  Corp.  v.  Tanner,  407 
U. S.  551,  569–570  (1972);  Central  Hardware  Co.  v. 
NLRB, 407 U. S. 539, 547 (1972); Alliance for Community 
Media, 56 F. 3d, at 121–123. 
  The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: 
Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity 
that  only  governmental  entities  have  traditionally  per-
formed.  Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum 
for  speech  is  not  transformed  by  that  fact  alone  into  a 
state actor.  After all, private property owners and private 
lessees  often  open  their  property  for  speech.    Grocery 
stores  put  up  community  bulletin  boards.    Comedy  clubs 
host  open  mic  nights.    As  Judge  Jacobs  persuasively  ex-
plained,  it  “is  not  at  all  a  near-exclusive  function  of  the 
state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, 
information, or entertainment.”  882 F. 3d, at 311 (opinion 
concurring in part and dissenting in part).