Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 32

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

13 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

That made the channels a public forum.  See supra, at 9–
10.    Opening  a  public  forum,  in  turn,  entailed  First 
Amendment obligations. 
  The  City  could  have  done  the  job  itself,  but  it  instead 
delegated that  job  to  a private  entity,  MNN.    MNN  could 
have  said  no,  but it said  yes.   (Indeed, it  appears to  exist 
entirely to do this job.)  By accepting the job, MNN accepted 
the  City’s  responsibilities.    See  West,  487  U. S.,  at  55. 
The First Amendment does not fall silent simply because a 
government  hands  off  the  administration  of  its  constitu-
tional duties to a private actor. 

III 
  The  majority  acknowledges  that  the  First  Amendment 
could  apply  when  a  local  government  either  (1)  has  a 
property  interest  in  public-access  channels  or  (2)  is  more 
directly involved in administration of those channels than 
the  City  is  here.    Ante,  at  15.    And  it  emphasizes  that  it 
“decide[s]  only  the  case  before  us  in  light  of  the  record 
before  us.”    Ibid.    These  case-specific  qualifiers  sharply 
limit  the  immediate  effect  of  the  majority’s  decision,  but 
that  decision  is  still  meaningfully  wrong  in  two  ways.  
First, the majority erroneously decides the property ques-
tion against the plaintiffs as a matter of law.  Second, and 
more  fundamentally,  the  majority  mistakes  a  case  about 
the  government  choosing  to  hand  off  responsibility  to  an 
agent for a case about a private entity that simply enters a 
marketplace. 

A 
  The  majority’s  explanation  for  why  there  is  no  govern-

—————— 

are operated in practice, this case arises from MNN’s motion to dismiss, 
so the facts asserted against it must be accepted as true.  Hernandez v. 
Mesa,  582  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (per  curiam)  (slip  op.,  at  1).    And  any 
uncertainty about the facts or New York law, in any event, would be a 
reason to vacate and remand, not reverse.