Opinion ID: 196780
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Traditional Public Function Analysis

Text: 24 [F]or a private actor to be deemed to have acted under color of state law, it is not enough to show that the private actor performed a public function. Rockwell, 26 F.3d at 258. Rather, [t]he plaintiff must show that the private entity assumed powers 'traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.'  Id. (quoting Rodriques, 950 F.2d at 813). The exclusive function test screens for situations where a state tries to escape its responsibilities by delegating them to private parties. Id. at 258; see Johnson v. Pinkerton Academy, 861 F.2d 335, 338 (1st Cir.1988). If the convening of the AEELA's assembly or the election of its board are traditional, exclusively sovereign functions which have merely been delegated to private actors, then the state cannot escape responsibility for constitutional deprivations caused by private parties acting pursuant to the delegation. Rockwell, 26 F.3d at 258. 25 In Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 852, 102 S.Ct. at 2777, the Supreme Court discussed the public function analysis of state action. The Court concluded that although the education of maladjusted high school students is a public function for which the state intends to provide services at public expense, that legislative policy choice in no way makes these services the exclusive province of the State.... That a private entity performs a function which serves the public does not makes its acts state action. Id.; see also Ponce, 760 F.2d at 381. 26 Plaintiffs contend that for public interest purposes, the government of Puerto Rico has delegated to the AEELA the traditional activity of promoting savings among government employees, and providing them benefits such as loans, insurance and medical services. We agree with Plaintiffs that providing such benefits to public employees probably does promote the public interest. However, these services cannot reasonably be characterized as the exclusive province of the State, since banks, credit unions, savings and loans associations, brokerage firms, mutual funds, and insurance companies traditionally have existed to promote savings, loans and health and other insurance. As a result, we conclude that Defendants cannot be found to have engaged in state action under the traditional public function test.