Also known as: public functions · public functions doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine holding that private conduct amounts to state action when the private actor performs a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government. The doctrine triggers constitutional constraints such as equal protection or free speech protections on the private actor. Courts apply it only when the function has been the exclusive prerogative of the state rather than one shared with private entities.
Penelope Price, a private plaintiff in a civil contract dispute, used peremptory challenges to remove all Black venire members. The trial judge oversaw the selection process and enforced the strikes. Because jury selection is a traditional public function performed with court participation, the discriminatory strikes are treated as state action and violate equal protection.
Premier Manufacturing owned and operated an entire town including sidewalks and streets open to the public. When Paul Peterson attempted to distribute religious literature on those sidewalks, company security stopped him. Because the company performed the traditional public function of maintaining a municipality, its restrictions are subject to First Amendment limits.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paula Pierce, a newspaper reporter, refused to answer grand jury questions about confidential sources. She argued that forcing disclosure would impair the press function of informing the public. Because gathering and reporting news is not a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government, the reporter receives no special constitutional exemption from the duty to testify.
Patricia Patel managed a municipally owned park under a private contract. After a local newspaper criticized her handling of public funds, she sued for libel. Because the facts do not show performance of an exclusive public function triggering state action, the case turns on separate First Amendment standards for public officials.
Prism Analytics owned Grand Central Terminal and sought to build a large office tower above it. New York City denied the permit under its landmarks law to preserve the historic structure. Because the dispute centers on regulatory takings rather than state action by a private entity, the public function doctrine does not control the Fifth Amendment analysis.
Platinum Partners refused to sell a home to Priya Prasad solely because of her race. Prasad sued under federal civil rights statutes. Because the claim rests on Thirteenth Amendment enforcement power rather than state action by a private party performing a public function, the public function doctrine is not the basis for liability.
The public function doctrine focuses solely on whether the private actor performs a task traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government. The symbiotic relationship test instead examines financial interdependence and mutual benefits between the state and the private party. Both can produce state action but rest on distinct factual triggers.
No. A privately owned shopping mall lacks the attributes of a municipality and does not perform a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government. Therefore its owners may exclude picketers without violating the First Amendment.
A private political organization that conducts preprimary elections effectively determining public office candidates performs an exclusive public function. Its racially discriminatory selection process therefore constitutes state action subject to equal protection requirements.
Jury selection is a traditional governmental function conducted with significant court participation. Private litigants exercising peremptory challenges during that process therefore engage in state action and may not discriminate on the basis of race.
…(1967). Finally, government actions that may be characterized as acquisitions of resources to permit or facilitate uniquely public functions have often been held to constitute “takings.” United States v. Causby , 328 U. S. 256 (1946), is illustrative. In holding that direct overflights above the claimant’s land, that…