Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 33

14  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

mental  property  interest  here,  ante,  at  14–15,  does  not 
hold  up.    The  majority  focuses  on  the  fact  that  “[b]oth 
Time  Warner  and  MNN  are  private  entities”;  that  Time 
Warner “owns its cable network, which contains the public 
access  channels”;  and  that  “MNN  operates  those  public 
access  channels  with  its  own  facilities  and  equipment.”  
Ante,  at  14;  see  also  ante,  at  15.    Those  considerations 
cannot  resolve  this  case.    The  issue  is  not  who  owns  the 
cable network or that MNN uses its own property to oper-
ate the channels.  The key question, rather, is whether the 
channels  themselves  are  purely  private  property.    An 
advertiser  may  not  own  a  billboard,  but  that  does  not 
mean  that  its  long-term  lease  is  not  a  property  interest.  
See supra, at 8. 
  The majority also says that “[n]othing in the record here 
suggests  that  a  government  . . .  owns  or  leases  either  the 
cable system or the public access channels at issue here.”  
Ante, at 14.  But the cable system itself is irrelevant, and, 
as explained above, the details of the exchange that yielded 
Time  Warner’s  cable  franchise  suggest  a  governmental 
property interest in the channels.  See supra, at 6–9. 
  The  majority  observes  that  “the  franchise  agreements 
expressly  place  the  public  access  channels  ‘under  the 
jurisdiction’ of MNN,” ante, at 14, but that language sim- 
ply describes the City’s appointment of MNN to administer 
the  channels.    The  majority  also  chides  respondents  for 
failing  to  “alleg[e]  in  their  complaint  that  the  City  has  a 
property  interest  in  the  channels,”  ibid.,  but,  fairly  read, 
respondents’  complaint  includes  such  an  assertion.10    In 

—————— 

10 Respondents  alleged  that  the  City  “created  an  electronic  public 
forum” and “delegat[ed] control of that forum to” MNN.  App. 17.  They 
further  alleged  that  “[a]lmost  all  cable  franchise  agreements  require 
cable operators—as a condition for easements to use the public rights-
of-way—to dedicate some channels for programming by the public,” id., 
at  20,  invoked  the  state  regulations  requiring  the  designation  of  a 
channel  here,  id.,  at  21,  and  then  alleged  that  the  City’s  franchise