Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 9

6  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK 

Opinion of the Court 

producers  assert  that  MNN  is  nonetheless  a  state  actor 
subject  to  First  Amendment  constraints  on  its  editorial 
discretion.   Under  this Court’s  cases,  a private  entity  can 
qualify  as  a  state  actor  in  a  few  limited  circumstances—
including,  for  example,  (i) when  the  private  entity  per-
forms  a  traditional,  exclusive  public  function,  see,  e.g., 
Jackson,  419  U. S.,  at  352–354;  (ii) when  the  government 
compels the private entity to take a particular action, see, 
e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982); or 
(iii) when  the  government  acts  jointly  with  the  private 
entity,  see,  e.g.,  Lugar  v.  Edmondson  Oil  Co.,  457  U. S. 
922, 941–942 (1982). 
  The  producers’  primary  argument  here  falls  into  the 
first category: The producers contend that MNN exercises 
a  traditional,  exclusive  public  function  when  it  operates 
the public access channels on Time Warner’s cable system 
in Manhattan.  We disagree. 

A 
  Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as 
a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclu-
sively  reserved  to  the  State.”    Jackson,  419  U. S.,  at  352.  
It  is  not  enough  that  the  federal,  state,  or  local  govern-
ment exercised the function in the past, or still does.  And 
it is not enough that the function serves the public good or 
the  public  interest  in  some  way.    Rather,  to  qualify  as  a 
traditional,  exclusive  public  function  within  the  meaning 
of our state-action precedents, the government must have 
traditionally and exclusively performed the function.  See 
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U. S. 830, 842 (1982); Jackson, 
419 U. S., at 352–353; Evans v. Newton, 382 U. S. 296, 300 
(1966). 
  The  Court  has  stressed  that  “very  few”  functions  fall 
into  that  category.    Flagg  Bros.,  Inc.  v.  Brooks,  436  U. S. 
149, 158 (1978).  Under the Court’s cases, those functions 
include,  for  example,  running  elections  and  operating  a