Federal Regulation of the States - Government Functions Flashcards
Marsh v. Alabama
States cannot let companies that owned towns to institute rules that curtail people’s Constitutional rights.
Marsh v. Alabama
Issue
Whether Alabama could criminally punish someone who tried to spread their religion in a company owned town.
Marsh v. Alabama
Facts
Gulf Shipping Corp. owned Chickasaw, AL, a suburb that looked like any other government-run suburb. Appellant distributed religious literature after being warned not to and was arrested for trespass. Appellant said the town was infringing on her 1st and 14th Amendment rights. Alabama argued that because the town was owned by Gulf, it had the right to abridge freedoms.
Marsh v. Alabama
Reasoning:
Had Chickasaw been run by a municipal corporation, it couldn’t violate appellant’s rights. The more a private company opens its property to the public, the more his interests are outweighed by the public good. People in company-owned towns have the same rights of other Americans
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc
A union wanted to picket an employer in a plaza. The Court applied Marsh to rule that the shopping center was a state actor and thus had to allow a union to picket its employer
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner
People wanted to picket against the Vietnam, War. The court ruled that the shopping center was not a state actor. In Logan Valley, the picketing had to be done on private property to be effective. Here, the picking was not related to the mall’s functions.
Hudgens v. NLRB
The facts were similar to Logan Valley, but Lloyd overruled that case so the shopping center was not a state actor.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority
When a state leases public property to a private entity and forms a relationship of interdependence with that entity, the private lessee must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of discriminatory conduct. Plaintiff sued because he was denied entry into a coffee shop because of his race. The coffee shop was in a government-run building and the building and the shop supported each other. The building provided parking for customers and the coffee shop provided money for the building’s upkeep.
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
For purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, an action of a private entity will only be treated as state action if there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the private entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the state itself. The defendant cut off the plaintiff’s electricity without notice and plaintiff sued under the 14th Amendment, saying the company couldn’t shut down her power without appropriate notice. Although the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission allowed Metropolitan Edison Co. to be a monopoly, that wasn’t enough to say the company was acting as the state
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
A private company becomes a state entity only when it performs a traditional, exclusive, public functions.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Issue
Whether Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), which operated Time Warner’s public access channels, was a state actor that must comply with the Constitution.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Facts
MNN operated TW’s public channels. Two people made a film about MNN’s neglect of some service errors and MNN suspended them. They sued under the 1st Amendment, claiming that MNN exercises a traditional, exclusive public action.
Reasoning: A traditional, exclusive public function must be one that ONLY the govt performs. Running public access channels has not been a traditional, exclusive public function. Providing a public forum is not a traditional, exclusive public function so when a private owner provides one, the owner does not have to honor the 1st Amendment. The fact that a city designates a private company to operate public access channels and regulates it doesn’t make it a state actor. NYC does not own the public access channels and MNN is not simply managing govt property.
Holding: MNN was a private actor not subject to First Amendment constraints
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Reasoning
A traditional, exclusive public function must be one that ONLY the govt performs. Running public access channels has not been a traditional, exclusive public function. Providing a public forum is not a traditional, exclusive public function so when a private owner provides one, the owner does not have to honor the 1st Amendment. The fact that a city designates a private company to operate public access channels and regulates it doesn’t make it a state actor. NYC does not own the public access channels and MNN is not simply managing govt property.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Holding
MNN was a private actor not subject to First Amendment constraints
