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.
Though the term would seem to include only persons who are directly employed by the state, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted these amendments and laws passed pursuant to them to cover many persons who have only an indirect relationship with the government. Controversies have arisen, for example, over whether private companies that run towns (the "company-town") and prisons (traditionally a state function) can be held liable as having performed a state action when they violate fundamental civil rights. This question remains unresolved, but the Supreme Court has held private citizens to be liable for state action when they conspire with government officials to deprive people of their rights.
The 1989 case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County was decided on the basis of the state action doctrine. Social workers separated a young son Joshua from his abusive father Randy, but concluded there was not enough evidence for a permanent separation, and later reunited son with father; later, the father beat his son into a persistent vegetative state. The Supreme Court ruled that despite involvement by state social workers, the wrongful action was attributable only to the father, making it a private action. Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment protections did not apply.[1]
Unlike state action, private action is generally not required to afford individuals the constitutional rights mentioned above. In nearly all U.S. states, private shopping center owners can eject protesters from their land for trespassing, and private associations can eject members or deny admission to applicants, with no warning and for no reason. But in a handful of states, notably California, state constitutional protections and certain common law rights have been extended to limit private action. California allows the peaceful exercise of free speech in private shopping centers (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)) and requires certain types of private action to afford current or potential members a rudimentary version of procedural due process called fair procedure.
Casesedit
There are a number of situations where the United States Supreme Court has recognized the conduct of individuals or private organizations to be "state action," and therefore subject to provisions of the Constitution such as Equal Protection, Due Process, or the First Amendment. Equal Protection is guaranteed under Section I of the 14th Amendment[2] and Due Process is guaranteed under the 5th Amendment.[3] The Supreme Court has held the following:
Merely opening up a business to the public is not state action, but the performance of a "public function" (a function that has been traditionally and exclusively performed by the state) is state action (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946));
If an individual or organization merely enters into a contract or asserts a contractual right outside of court it is not state action, but if an individual or organization sues to judicially enforce a contractual right it can be state action (Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948));
If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action, but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982));
If the government merely enters into a contract with an individual or organization for the goods or services, the actions of the private party are not state action, but if the government and the private party enter into a "joint enterprise" or a "symbiotic relationship" with each other it is state action (Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961));
If government agencies are simply members of a private organization, the actions of the organization are not state action, but if the government is "pervasively entwined" with the leadership of the private organization, the acts of the organization are state action (Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 535 U.S. 971 (2002)).
The underlying presumption is that cases where private action wields public power are rare and occur mainly when the government tries to hide behind private surrogates whom it controls. Current doctrine pays little attention to whether the government is, in fact, delegating power to private entities to act on its behalf. To the extent private delegations are considered, it is under the rubric of private delegation doctrine, which assesses whether the Constitution's separation of powers and due process requirements prohibit the government from delegating certain types of powers to private hands. But constitutional law makes no attempt to link the constitutionality of a private delegation to the risk that it will place government power outside of constitutional controls.
^John E. Finn (2006). "Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights". The Teaching Company. Part I: Lecture 3: Two Types of Liberty: Positive and Negative
^Staff, L. I. I. (2009-11-12). "14th Amendment". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2019-01-31.
^Staff, L. I. I. (2010-02-05). "Fifth Amendment". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2019-01-31.
^Metzger, Gillian (2003-01-01). "Privatization as Delegation". Colum. L. Rev. 103 (6): 1367–1502. doi:10.2307/3593390. JSTOR 3593390.
Referencesedit
Black, Charles. "The Supreme Court 1966 Term—Foreword: 'State Action,' Equal Protection, and California's Proposition 14." Harvard Law Review. 81:69 (1967)
Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Rethinking State Action." Northwestern University Law Review. 80:503 (1985).
Friendly, Henry J. "The Public-Private Penumbra—Fourteen Years Later." University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 130:1289 (1982).
Stone, Christopher D. "Corporate Vices and Corporate Virtues: Do Public/Private Distinctions Matter?" University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 130:1441 (1982).
Strickland, Henry C. "The State Action Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. 18:587 (1991).
Glennon, Jr., Robert J. and Nowak, John E. "A Functional Analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment 'State Action' Requirement." Supreme Court Review. 1976:221.
February 16, 2024
state, action, other, uses, state, actor, germany, state, disambiguation, this, article, needs, additional, citations, verification, please, help, improve, this, article, adding, citations, reliable, sources, unsourced, material, challenged, removed, find, sou. For other uses see State actor Germany and State act disambiguation This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources State action news newspapers books scholar JSTOR March 2022 Learn how and when to remove this template message 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 Contents 1 Jurisprudence 1 1 Meaning 1 2 Cases 2 Scholarly commentary 3 See also 4 Notes 5 ReferencesJurisprudence editMeaning edit Though the term would seem to include only persons who are directly employed by the state the United States Supreme Court has interpreted these amendments and laws passed pursuant to them to cover many persons who have only an indirect relationship with the government Controversies have arisen for example over whether private companies that run towns the company town and prisons traditionally a state function can be held liable as having performed a state action when they violate fundamental civil rights This question remains unresolved but the Supreme Court has held private citizens to be liable for state action when they conspire with government officials to deprive people of their rights The 1989 case of DeShaney v Winnebago County was decided on the basis of the state action doctrine Social workers separated a young son Joshua from his abusive father Randy but concluded there was not enough evidence for a permanent separation and later reunited son with father later the father beat his son into a persistent vegetative state The Supreme Court ruled that despite involvement by state social workers the wrongful action was attributable only to the father making it a private action Accordingly the Fourteenth Amendment protections did not apply 1 Unlike state action private action is generally not required to afford individuals the constitutional rights mentioned above In nearly all U S states private shopping center owners can eject protesters from their land for trespassing and private associations can eject members or deny admission to applicants with no warning and for no reason But in a handful of states notably California state constitutional protections and certain common law rights have been extended to limit private action California allows the peaceful exercise of free speech in private shopping centers see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins 1980 and requires certain types of private action to afford current or potential members a rudimentary version of procedural due process called fair procedure Cases edit There are a number of situations where the United States Supreme Court has recognized the conduct of individuals or private organizations to be state action and therefore subject to provisions of the Constitution such as Equal Protection Due Process or the First Amendment Equal Protection is guaranteed under Section I of the 14th Amendment 2 and Due Process is guaranteed under the 5th Amendment 3 The Supreme Court has held the following Merely opening up a business to the public is not state action but the performance of a public function a function that has been traditionally and exclusively performed by the state is state action Marsh v Alabama 326 U S 501 1946 If an individual or organization merely enters into a contract or asserts a contractual right outside of court it is not state action but if an individual or organization sues to judicially enforce a contractual right it can be state action Shelley v Kraemer 334 U S 1 1948 If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action but if the government coerces influences or encourages the performance of the act it is state action Rendell Baker v Kohn 457 U S 830 1982 If the government merely enters into a contract with an individual or organization for the goods or services the actions of the private party are not state action but if the government and the private party enter into a joint enterprise or a symbiotic relationship with each other it is state action Burton v Wilmington Parking Authority 365 U S 715 1961 If government agencies are simply members of a private organization the actions of the organization are not state action but if the government is pervasively entwined with the leadership of the private organization the acts of the organization are state action Brentwood Academy v Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association 535 U S 971 2002 Scholarly commentary editAccording to constitutional law scholar Gillian E Metzger 4 The underlying presumption is that cases where private action wields public power are rare and occur mainly when the government tries to hide behind private surrogates whom it controls Current doctrine pays little attention to whether the government is in fact delegating power to private entities to act on its behalf To the extent private delegations are considered it is under the rubric of private delegation doctrine which assesses whether the Constitution s separation of powers and due process requirements prohibit the government from delegating certain types of powers to private hands But constitutional law makes no attempt to link the constitutionality of a private delegation to the risk that it will place government power outside of constitutional controls See also editCitizenship Manhattan Community Access Corp v Halleck Jones v Alfred H Mayer Co private party was held liable for discriminationNotes edit John E Finn 2006 Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights The Teaching Company Part I Lecture 3 Two Types of Liberty Positive and Negative Staff L I I 2009 11 12 14th Amendment LII Legal Information Institute Retrieved 2019 01 31 Staff L I I 2010 02 05 Fifth Amendment LII Legal Information Institute Retrieved 2019 01 31 Metzger Gillian 2003 01 01 Privatization as Delegation Colum L Rev 103 6 1367 1502 doi 10 2307 3593390 JSTOR 3593390 References editBlack Charles The Supreme Court 1966 Term Foreword State Action Equal Protection and California s Proposition 14 Harvard Law Review 81 69 1967 Chemerinsky Erwin Rethinking State Action Northwestern University Law Review 80 503 1985 Friendly Henry J The Public Private Penumbra Fourteen Years Later University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130 1289 1982 Stone Christopher D Corporate Vices and Corporate Virtues Do Public Private Distinctions Matter University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130 1441 1982 Strickland Henry C The State Action Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 18 587 1991 Glennon Jr Robert J and Nowak John E A Functional Analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment State Action Requirement Supreme Court Review 1976 221 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title State action amp oldid 1185968837, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
