October Term 2018 · Docket 17-1702

Does a private cable operator acting under state law create a public forum?

The dispute centers on whether a private company administering a state-mandated public access channel constitutes a government actor.

Official caption
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The operator argued that expanding the public function test would radically change existing law.

    The residents argued that the operator was engaged by the city to administer a state-determined scheme.

    Justice Sotomayor noted that government often has its own speech and creates speech.

    Justice Ginsburg described the operator as administering a first-come, first-served access scheme.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the boundary between private conduct and state action in First Amendment law.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2019.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The operator wants the Court to rule that private conduct does not create a public forum.

The residents want the Court to rule that the state-mandated channel is a public forum.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The operator argues that strict adherence to state action precedents preserves the line between government and private conduct.

The residents argue that New York opened property for speech through a general first-come, first-served access policy.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked how the other thirteen board members are chosen.

Justice Breyer asked what discretion the operator has given non-commercial and non-discriminatory regulations.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines when private entities become state actors. It determines the scope of free speech protections on private property. It clarifies the limits of government regulation over private speech channels.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON