Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

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. While the case deals with speech limited by a public access television station, questioning whether the station was a state actor or a private entity, analysts expected the case will determine if private operators' limitations on free speech on social media violate First Amendment rights. The Court ruled that the station was not considered a state actor for purposes of evaluating free speech issues in the 5-4 ruling along ideological lines.[1]

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
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

Background

In the past, the Supreme Court has not directly ruled that public access televisions 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.[2] 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.[3] 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. According to Halleck, the following day Melendez was told he was not allowed in the studio. [4] Halleck and Melendez then produced a program entitled The 1% Visit El Barrio [5]that was critical of MNN. While their program was aired once, further airings were cancelled and the two were denied further access to the MNN premises and channel, Halleck for a year and Melendez for life.[6]

The two filed suit against MNN and the city, claiming that how MNN was set up made the public access system a public forum, and that their First Amendment rights to free speech were violated. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case in December 2016, 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."[6]

On appeal to the Second Circuit, two of the three judges there ruled for Halleck and Melendez, citing Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissent in Denver Area that suggested that public access systems, since mandated by the government, should be treated as state actors, and thus cannot regulate free speech.[7] The City was not considered to be at fault.[8]

MNN petitioned for writ of certatori in June 2018, with the Court granting the case in October 2018. It was the first case accepted by the Court following the induction of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, replacing Kennedy on the bench.

While the case is directly about public access television, several analysts believe that the Court will also review how companies that control social media on the Internet would by treated under similar considerations. This was predicated on the Court's prior decision in Packingham v. North Carolina,[9] where the Court did rule that social media was a "protected space" for lawful speech under the First Amendment.[10][11]

Supreme Court

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]

Decision

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.[1] The Court stated that the MNN is immune to the First and Fourteenth amendments due to its status as a private company. The opinion argues that First and Fourteenth Amendments only apply to “governmental abridgment of speech” and not to “private abridgment of speech” (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). 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 opinions 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. The opinion compares itself to cases 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 licences, and corporate charters respectively. Justice Kavanaugh also writes that even if a private organization creates a public forum for speech, the fact that it is a private company allows its immunity from the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Hudgens v. NLRB, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, and Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB). An example Justice Kavanaugh 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. [13]

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."[14] 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. [15]

Aftermath

As the decision was more limited, ruling on the status of MNN rather than whether the actions directly affecting free speech, the case is not expected to have a major impact on social media.[14]

References
  1. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2019).
  2. Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996).
  3. Kavanaugh, Brett. "Opinion of the Court" (PDF). Jusita.
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaLDXxhzI-o#action=share
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEbMTGEQ1xc
  6. Halleck v. City of New York, 224 F. Supp. 3d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
  7. Halleck v. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp., 882 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2018).
  9. Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194, 582 U.S. ___ (2017).
  12. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-1702_2bo2.pdf
  13. Kavanaugh, Brett. "Opinion of the Court" (PDF). Retrieved 15 August 2019.
  14. Lecher, Colin (June 17, 2019). "First Amendment constraints don't apply to private platforms, Supreme Court affirms". The Verge. Retrieved June 17, 2019.
  15. Sotomayor, Sonia. "Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck" (PDF).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.