state action

Question 1

Baseline State-Action Requirement

Answer 1

A plaintiff bringing a constitutional claim must show that the challenged conduct is attributable to the State rather than purely private behavior (Civil Rights Cases).

Question 2

Public Function Exception

Answer 2

A private actor is treated as a state actor only when it performs a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government — a category applied extremely narrowly, satisfied in cases involving municipal governance or the State’s non-delegable duties (Marsh; West), and not satisfied by operating utilities or cable channels (Jackson; Manhattan).

Question 3

Entanglement / State-Compulsion / Nexus Exception

Answer 3

Private conduct is attributable to the State when the government compels, directs, significantly encourages, jointly participates in, affirmatively approves, or judicially enforces the specific challenged act — (1) as when courts enforce private covenants (Shelley) , officials execute attachment procedures (2) (Lugar), (3) public and private enterprises operate symbiotically (Burton), (4) regulatory bodies formally authorize practices (Pollak), or (5) public institutions are pervasively intertwined with nominally private entities (Brentwood).

Question 4

Unconstitutional-Conditions Rule

Answer 4

The government may not condition a benefit, funding stream, or permit on surrendering a constitutional right unless the condition defines the program or directly relates to preventing the harm the government may regulate (Rust; Maher; Nollan).

Question 5

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Answer 5

Event: Private businesses like inns and theaters excluded Black patrons and were prosecuted under the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Holding: No state action because the Fourteenth Amendment regulates only state conduct; Congress cannot prohibit purely private discrimination.

Question 6

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

Answer 6

Event: A Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespass while distributing religious leaflets in a company-owned town open to the public. Holding: The company town performed traditional municipal functions, making it a state actor; it could not suppress speech on public streets.

Question 7

West v. Atkins (1988)

Answer 7

Event: A state prisoner received allegedly inadequate medical care from a private physician contracted to treat inmates. Holding: The doctor was a state actor because the State delegated its non-delegable duty to provide inmate medical care and inmates were compelled to use the state-provided system.

Question 8

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974)

Answer 8

Event: A privately owned, state-regulated utility terminated service under a tariff the state allowed to take effect. Holding: No state action because regulation and monopoly status did not show the State compelled or endorsed the termination.

Question 9

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019)

Answer 9

Event: A private nonprofit running public-access cable channels suspended filmmakers after airing critical content. Holding: No state action because operating public-access channels is not a traditionally exclusive government function, and the City’s designation did not transform editorial decisions into government conduct.

Question 10

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Answer 10

Event: White homeowners sued in state court to enforce private racial covenants against Black purchasers. Holding: Judicial enforcement of private racial covenants constitutes state action because courts use state power to deny rights based on race.

Question 11

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (1982)

Answer 11

Event: A creditor used a state prejudgment attachment procedure to seize a debtor’s property. Holding: State action existed because the private party invoked, and the sheriff executed, a state-created procedure causing the deprivation.

Question 12

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)

Answer 12

Event: A restaurant in a publicly owned parking facility refused service to a Black patron. Holding: State action because the restaurant and public authority were symbiotically linked, placing the State’s power and property behind the discrimination.

Question 13

Pollak (Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak) (1952)

Answer 13

Event: A private transit company broadcast radio programs on buses and the regulatory commission investigated and approved the practice. Holding: Federal action existed because the commission affirmatively considered and authorized the broadcasts.

Question 14

Brentwood Academy v. TSSAA (2001)

Answer 14

Event: A private school was sanctioned by the statewide athletic association for recruiting violations. Holding: State action due to pervasive entwinement—public schools dominated membership, officials served on boards, and the State delegated authority over school athletics.

Question 15

Rust v. Sullivan (1991)

Answer 15

Event: HHS barred Title X clinics from abortion counseling or referrals within the funded program. Holding: No unconstitutional condition because government may define its funding program and decline to subsidize abortion-related speech while leaving recipients free to speak outside the program.

Question 16

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

Answer 16

Event: A building permit was conditioned on granting a public easement across beachfront property. Holding: Unconstitutional because the condition lacked an essential nexus to the alleged harm; government cannot demand unrelated property concessions as permit conditions.