Lights, Camera, State Action: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

Authors

Graham L. Fisher, Cardozo Law Review

Document Type

Student Note

Publication Date

2020

Graduation Year

2021

Abstract

It is a well-established rule that constitutional constraints governing public entities do not extend to private actors—until they do. If this principle seems unclear, it is largely due to the piecemeal jurisprudence that defines the “state action” doctrine. This doctrine applies when courts hold that a private actor is subject to constitutional constraints by virtue of the quasi-public role they have willingly accepted. In these situations, constitutional protections—and the resulting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions—may be available to those who demand relief. While questions of what entails a “state action” loom in the face of closely intertwined private and public actors, Halleck simplifies the inquiry with an updated definition of the types of private functions that now qualify as state action.

Publisher

Cardozo Law Review de·novo

Volume

2020

First Page

165

Recommended Citation

Fisher, Graham L., "Lights, Camera, State Action: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck" (2020). Cardozo Law Review de•novo. 77.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/de-novo/77