Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

Last updated

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 25, 2019
Decided June 17, 2019
Full case nameManhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Docket no. 17-1702
Citations587 U.S. ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1921; 204 L. Ed. 2d 405
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, Halleck v. City of New York, 224 F. Supp. 3d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); reversed in part, Halleck v. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp., 882 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 360 (2018).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
DissentSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to limitations on First Amendment-based free speech placed by private operators. The Court held that a public access station was not considered a state actor for purposes of evaluating free speech issues in a 5–4 ruling split along ideological lines. Prior to the Court's decision, analysts believed that the case had the potential to determine whether limitations on free speech on social media violate First Amendment rights. However, the Court's narrow holding avoided that issue.

Contents

Background

Alleged violation

In the past, the Supreme Court has not directly ruled that public access television systems, which operate on leased channels provided by the government, are not considered public forums, as established by a split ruling in Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. F.C.C. [1] In the 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated that cable operators leave some channels for public use. However, in 1979, the Supreme Court case Federal Communications Commission v. Midwest Video Corporation ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to institute this order. In 1984, President Reagan signed the Cable Communications Policy allowing state governments to require cable operators to devote some channels for public access. [2] Such television systems have generally been upheld as being private operators rather than a state actor, giving them the ability to limit free speech.

Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) is a public access television network run by Manhattan Community Access Corp. that serves New York City. In 2012, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez, employees of MNN at the time, went to a MNN Board meeting but were told the meeting was private. Halleck and Melendez then produced a program entitled The 1% Visit El Barrio that was critical of MNN. [3] While their program was only aired once, further airings were cancelled and the two were denied further access to MNN's premises and channel. [4] [lower-alpha 1]

Procedural history

Halleck and Melendez filed suit against MNN and the city, claiming that MNN was a public forum which had violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. In December 2016, The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, following arguments from the city and MNN, and following the Supreme Court's own decision from Denver Area that declined to settle whether public access systems were considered state actors. The District Court found, "In short, there is no clear precedent governing whether public access channels are public fora. The issue is certainly a close call." [4]

On appeal to the Second Circuit, two of the three judges ruled for Halleck and Melendez, citing Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissent in Denver Area which suggested that public access systems, which were mandated by the government, should be treated as state actors, and therefore could not regulate free speech. [5] The Second Circuit did not find the City to be at fault. [6]

MNN petitioned for writ of certiorari in June 2018, which the Supreme Court granted in October 2018. It was the first case accepted by the Court following the induction of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, replacing Kennedy on the bench. [7]

Speculation

While the case was directly about public access television, several analysts believed the Court would also review how companies that control social media on the Internet would be treated under similar considerations. This was predicated on the Court's prior decision in Packingham v. North Carolina , [8] where the Court held that social media was a "protected space" for lawful speech under the First Amendment. [9] [10] Ultimately, the decision was more limited, ruling on the status of MNN rather than whether the actions directly affect free speech; thus the case was not expected to have a major impact on social media. [11]

Holding

On February 25, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. The Justices' questions centered around whether the city had a property interest in MNN's channel space and what precisely New York's "first come, first serve" rule meant practically. [12] The Court delivered its 5–4 decision along ideological lines on June 17, 2019, which reversed the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the case to be reheard on its ruling.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, finding that MNN could not be considered a state actor in how it operates, and as such, was not bound to protect free speech rights as a state actor would be expected. [13] The Court stated that the MNN is immune to the First and Fourteenth amendments due to its status as a private company. The opinion based its holding on the fact that First and Fourteenth Amendments only apply to “governmental abridgment of speech” and not to “private abridgment of speech”. [14] In order for an organization to be seen as governmental, private companies must be a state actor, meaning an organization that exercises “powers traditionally exclusive to the state”, defined from the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. and the action must have been originally and solely performed by the government (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, Evans v. Newton). In conclusion, the opinion states that even though the local government of New York City did give a contract for the MNN to operate these public access channels, since they have been operated by private cable companies from earlier times, the action of operating a public access channel does not meet the criteria of the function being originally and solely performed by the government. [15]

The opinion compares the facts of the case to prior court precedent such as Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward for broadcast licenses, liquor licenses, and corporate charters respectively. The opinion also stated that even if a private organization creates a public forum for speech, the fact that it is a private company means the First Amendment is not applicable. An example the opinion gives is that private organizations such as grocery stores and comedy clubs allow public forums such as bulletin boards or open mic sessions, but only topics that are relevant to these organizations are allowed to be expressed. [15]

Halleck did not address the constitutionality of New York's regulation of public access television. However, an appended footnote in the opinion indicated that some members of the Court had an interest in deciding "whether legislatures can constitutionally require cable operators to cede editorial control of the content of some of their channels in an effort to promote a more robust and inclusive public sphere." [16]

Dissenting opinion

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor believed that MNN “stepped into the City's shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other." [11] Justice Sotomayor also argues that since New York City laws require that public-access channels be open to all, MNN also took responsibility for this law with the public-access channels. It did not matter whether the City or a private company runs this public forum since the City mandated that the channels be open to all. [17]

Notes

  1. ↑ Halleck was banned for a year while Melendez was banned for life.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Public-access television is traditionally a form of non-commercial mass media where the general public can create content television programming which is narrowcast through cable television specialty channels. Public-access television was created in the United States between 1969 and 1971 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Chairman Dean Burch, based on pioneering work and advocacy of George Stoney, Red Burns, and Sidney Dean.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span>

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. The right of free speech can, however, be lawfully restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

In United States constitutional law, state action is an action by a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timothy Tymkovich</span> American judge (born 1956)

Timothy Michael Tymkovich is an American lawyer who has served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit since 2003; serving as chief judge from 2015 to 2022. In November 2023, he was designated by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC is the general title of two rulings of the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of must-carry regulations enforced by the Federal Communications Commission on cable television operators. In the first ruling, known colloquially as Turner I, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Supreme Court held that cable television companies were First Amendment speakers who enjoyed free speech rights when determining what channels and content to carry on their networks, but demurred on whether the must-carry rules at issue were restrictions of those rights. After a remand to a lower court for fact-finding on the economic effects of the then-recent Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, the dispute returned to the Supreme Court. In Turner II, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the Supreme Court held that must-carry rules for cable television companies were not restrictions of their free speech rights because the U.S. government had a compelling interest in enabling the distribution of media content from multiple sources and in preserving local television.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manhattan Neighborhood Network</span> American non-profit organization

Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) is an American non-profit organization that broadcasts programming on five public-access television cable TV stations in Manhattan, New York City. MNN operates two community media centres – in midtown Manhattan and East Harlem – and provides facilities to community producers and organizations who want to create programming to air on one of MNN's five channels. It is considered to be the largest community media center in the United States.

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that when the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, the government actions effects regulatory taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner. In doing so, it established the permanent physical presence test for regulatory takings.

DeeDee Halleck is a media activist, founder of Paper Tiger Television and co-founder of Deep Dish Television, the first grass roots community television network. She is a Professor Emerita in the Department of Communication at the University of California, San Diego.

Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986), was a 1986 appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether Puerto Rico's Games of Chance Act of 1948 is in legal compliance with the United States Constitution, specifically as regards freedom of speech, equal protection and due process. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Puerto Rico government (law) could restrict advertisement for casino gambling from being targeted to residents, even if the activity itself was legal and advertisement to tourists was permitted. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Puerto Rico Supreme Court conclusion, as construed by the Puerto Rico Superior Court, that the Act and regulations do not facially violate the First Amendment, nor did it violate the due process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that the passing out of anti-war leaflets at the Lloyd Center in Portland, Oregon, was an infringement on property rights. This differed from Marsh v. Alabama (1946) and Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968) in that Marsh had the attributes of a municipality and Logan Valley related to picketing a particular store, while the current case, the distribution of leaflets, is unrelated to any activity in the property.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech or expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene, as well as to issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are differences among such laws. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.

Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case. The Eleventh Circuit originally ruled in favor of Franks, “denying [Lane] first amendment protection to subpoenaed testimony”. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2014. The case was decided on June 19, 2014.

Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the City of Boston's program that allowed groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City Hall. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that the city violated a Christian group's free speech rights when it denied their request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state of Colorado cannot compel the designer to create work that violates her values. The case follows from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), which had dealt with similar conflict between free speech rights and Colorado's anti-discrimination laws but had been decided on narrower grounds.

References

  1. ↑ Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996).
  2. ↑ Kavanaugh, Brett. "Opinion of the Court" (PDF). Jusita.
  3. ↑ "The 1% Visits El Barrio; Whose Community?". www.youtube.com. 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
  4. 1 2 Halleck v. City of New York, 224F. Supp. 3d238 (S.D.N.Y.2016).
  5. ↑ Halleck v. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp., 882F.3d300 (2d Cir.2018).
  6. ↑ "Petition" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
  7. ↑ Goldman, Eric (June 26, 2019). "Private Publishers Aren't State Actors-Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved January 29, 2021.
  8. ↑ Packingham v. North Carolina ,No. 15-1194 , 582 U.S. ___(2017).
  9. ↑ Higgins, Tucker (October 16, 2018). "Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users". CNBC.
  10. ↑ "The Supreme Court takes a public-access TV case". The Economist.
  11. 1 2 Lecher, Colin (June 17, 2019). "First Amendment constraints don't apply to private platforms, Supreme Court affirms". The Verge . Retrieved June 17, 2019.
  12. ↑ "Oral arguments" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
  13. ↑ Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck,No. 17-1702 , 587 U.S. ___(2019).
  14. ↑ Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., Hudgens v. NLRB, and Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
  15. 1 2 "Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck" (PDF). Retrieved August 15, 2019.
  16. ↑ "Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck: Property Wins Out Over Speech on the Supposedly Free-Speech Court | ACS". September 17, 2001. Retrieved January 29, 2021.
  17. ↑ Sotomayor, Sonia. "Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck" (PDF).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.