Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

19 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

  To see more clearly the difference between the cases on 
which  the  majority  fixates  and  the  present  case,  leave 
aside the majority’s private comedy club.  Imagine instead 
that  a  state  college  runs  a  comedy  showcase  each  year, 
renting  out  a  local  theater  and,  pursuant  to  state  regula-
tions  mandating  open  access  to  certain  kinds  of  student 
activities,  allowing  students  to  sign  up  to  perform  on  a 
first-come,  first-served  basis.    Cf.  Rosenberger  v.  Rector 
and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995).  After a 
few years, the college decides that it is tired of running the 
show, so it hires a performing-arts nonprofit to do the job.  
The  nonprofit  prefers  humor  that  makes  fun  of  a  certain 
political party, so it allows only student acts that share its 
views  to  participate.    Does  the  majority  believe  that  the 
nonprofit is indistinguishable, for purposes of state action, 
from a private comedy club opened by local entrepreneurs? 
  I  hope  not.    But  two  dangers  lurk  here  regardless.    On 
the one hand, if the City’s decision to outsource the chan-
nels  to  a  private  entity  did  render  the  First  Amendment 
irrelevant,  there  would  be  substantial  cause  to  worry 
about the potential abuses that could follow.  Can a state 
university  evade  the  First  Amendment  by  hiring  a  non-
profit to apportion funding to student groups?  Can a city 
do the same by appointing a corporation to run a munici-
pal theater?  What about its parks? 
  On  the  other  hand,  the  majority  hastens  to  qualify  its 
decision,  see  ante,  at  7,  n. 1,  15,  and  to  cabin  it  to  the 
specific  facts  of  this  case,  ante,  at  15.    Those  are  prudent 
limitations.  Even so, the majority’s focus on Jackson still 
risks sowing confusion among the lower courts about how 
and when government outsourcing will render any abuses 
that follow beyond the reach of the Constitution. 
  In any event, there should be no confusion here.  MNN 

—————— 

is  immaterial,  so  long  as  they  have  not  accepted  the  government’s 
request to fulfill the government’s duties on its behalf.