Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
United States Supreme Court
139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 requires cable operators to reserve channels for public access. New York law mandates free public-access channels on a first-come, first-serve basis operated by cable operators, unless local governments operate the channels themselves or designate private entities to do so. Time Warner operates Manhattan’s cable system and reserves public-access channels in accordance with New York law. New York City designated Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), a private entity run by Manhattan Community Access Corporation (MCAC) (codefendants), to operate the public-access channels in Manhattan. MNN producers Deedee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez (plaintiffs) made a controversial film alleging MNN neglected East Harlem communities. After MNN suspended Halleck and Melendez, they sued MNN and MCAC, alleging that blocking them from using public-access channels because of the film’s content violated their First Amendment free-speech rights. The trial court dismissed the suit, reasoning that MNN was not a state actor and therefore not subject to First Amendment protections. But the Second Circuit reversed in part, concluding that MNN was a state actor. The United States Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)
Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
