The State Action Doctrine

8/19/2019 The State Action Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-state-action-doctrine 1/3



in the strict sense in which an agent is the representative of his principal." The antithesis of stateaction is discrimination by the private citi$en acting as such. The most obvious group of stateinvolvement cases deals with private persons or corporations who have discriminated and theinstrumentality of the discrimination has benefited from some form of government financialassistance. Thus, a private hospital which has participated in and has received funds from afederal aid program may not engage in discrimination. 6 The important in&uiry, therefore, is theinterplay of the government and private actions in light of the particular facts of a case. 3

Test Laid down by the Supreme Court of USA

Public Function Test: As per the Supreme Court the essential of this test is that "the

private entity should e:ercise powers which are traditionally e:clusively reserved to the

state, such as holding elections or eminent domain." 5 The Supreme Court has found

"e:clusive state power" to be a very narrow category. n fact, only the administration of

elections, 4 operation of a company town, 12 eminent domain, 11 peremptory challenges in

ury selection. 1%

State Compulsion Test * This test re&uires that a state should e:ercise such coercive

power that the "choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State. // 1' This test is met

when a state encourages or coerces a private party to engage in the challenged conduct.

6 Simkins v. oses /. 'one emorial /osp ., '%' ).%d 404 +(th Cir. 146' , cert. denied, '36 !.S. 4'5+146( .

7 0ilmore v. 'ity of ontgomery , (13 !.S. 006, 03' +143( .

8 1olotsky v. /uhn , 462 ).%d 1''1, 1''0 +6th Cir. 144%

9 Ni2on v. 'ondon , %56 !.S. 3' +14'%

10 arsh v. Alabama , '%6 !.S. 021 +14(6 .

11 3ackson v. etro. !dison 'o., (14 !.S. '(0, '0' +143(

12 !dmonson v. *eesville 'oncrete 'o ., 022 !.S. 61(, 6%% +1441 .

13 -lum v. 4aretsky , (03 !.S. 441, 122( +145% +citing )lagg ros., nc. v. rooks, ('6 !.S. 1(4, 166+1435 - ;ackson, (14 !.S. at '03-



!nlike the <ublic )unction Test which limited to a few specific situations, state

compulsion is based on the degree of the state/s influence over the private actor and,

therefore, its potential application is much broader than the public function test.

Therefore, the ma or &uestion that courts analy$e under this test is whether or not the

private entity had a choice to act or refrain from acting .1(

Ne us Test * Action of a private party constitutes state action when there is a sufficiently close

ne:us between the state and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the

latter may be fairly treated as that of the state itself. 10 8espite the inherently fact=bound nature of

state action, the Supreme Court stipulated that any one of the following factors, without more, are

insufficient to find a close ne:us* 1 state regulation, no matter its e:tent % public funding of a

private group- ' private use of public property- ( minor presence of public officials on the board

of a private entity- 0 the mere approval or ac&uiescence of the state in private activity- and 6

utili$ation of public services by private actors. 16 n combination, however, these factors may form

a sufficient basis for a finding of state action.

14 7ric 7ngle, #he Alien #ort Statute and the #orture &ictims +rotection Act5 3urisdictional oundationsand +rocedural (bstacles , 1( > ??A@7rT7 ;. T/? ?. B 8isp. 7sD?. 1, %' +%226

15 1olotsky v. /uhn , 462 ).%d 1''1, 1''0 +6th Cir. 144% .

16 3ackson v. etro. !dison 'o ., (14 !.S. '(0 +143( .

Documents

The State Action Doctrine