Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 20

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–1702 
_________________ 

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DEEDEE HALLECK, ET AL. 

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

[June 17, 2019] 

  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
  The Court tells a very reasonable story about a case that 
is not before us.  I write to address the one that is. 
  This  is  a  case  about  an  organization  appointed  by  the 
government  to  administer  a  constitutional  public  forum.  
(It is not, as the Court suggests, about a private property 
owner that simply opened up its property to others.)  New 
York City (the City) secured a property interest in public-
access  television  channels  when  it  granted  a  cable  fran-
chise to a cable company.  State regulations require those 
public-access  channels  to  be  made  open  to  the  public  on 
terms  that  render  them  a  public  forum.    The  City  con-
tracted  out  the  administration  of  that  forum  to  a  private 
organization,  petitioner  Manhattan  Community  Access 
Corporation  (MNN).    By  accepting  that  agency  relation-
ship, MNN stepped into the City’s shoes and thus qualifies 
as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any 
other. 

I 
A 
  A  cable-television  franchise  is,  essentially,  a  license  to 
create a system for distributing cable TV in a certain area.  
It is a valuable right, usually conferred on a private com-