State Action Requirement Doctrine Essay

State Action Requirement Doctrine
The U.S. Constitution is the framework of our government that defines its powers and limitations, and it describes the relationship between the citizens of the country and the government at national, state and local levels. The U.S. Constitution defines what government can and cannot do, but it does not, however, regulate the behavior of private citizens. Therefore, only government can violate the individual constitutional rights. The principle that only the federal, state, or local governments can violate constitutional rights is called state action. State action also refers to the indirect state involvement when activity is a public function or when private conduct becomes significantly involved with conduct by the government. State action is the main requirement for determining

whether a conduct is a constitutional violation.
In the situation when a city mayor announces that citizens may speak at city council meetings only if approved by their local alderman, the state action is on its face.

By definition, mayor is an official who is elected or appointed to act as a chief executive of a city or town (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Mayor is a governmental official, therefore, he or she acts on behalf of the local government. The mayor’s statement restricting the citizens’ speech at city council meetings will be viewed as the violation of the Freedom of Speech that is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The indirect state action can be found in a scenario when a state university removes student notices posted without school approval. A state university can be viewed as a governmental institution or agency, and the government is significantly involved in its operation: a public university is funded by state government; it serves public function; it acts on state’s behalf and promotes its interests; and it is bounded by state’s authority. Therefore, a state university might be held liable for a constitutional violation based on the state action

doctrine.
In case when a private university removes student notices posted without school approval, the state action requirement is not likely to be satisfied. A private university relies heavily on private contributions, and it is protected from the extensive government regulations. A private university can be compared to a private business entity with its established contractual obligations and requirements. The mere fact that a private university has received government grants to conduct research might not be enough to create a state action. In this situation the employees of a university are the “private actors”, and the students are not protected under the state action doctrine.
A state action will not necessarily be created even in the situations when the government regulates a private business. For example, a private restaurant with a city liquor license that fires an employee who criticizes the owners in an online review, most likely, will not be subjected to a state action doctrine. Most of the restaurants own a city liquor license, but they are still considered to be “private actors”. Similarly, in Moose Lodge .v Irvis, a private social club that was granted a liquor license by state did not fall under state action doctrine. The government is not significantly involved with the private conduct of the restaurant business simply by issuing a liquor license. Therefore, the state regulations that are imposed by the license do not create a state action. This scenario is distinguished from the situation described in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, where the conduct of a privately owned restaurant was considered a state action. In that case the restaurant was located in the building that was build and maintained with public funds to serve a public purpose and thus the restaurant and government were significantly intertwined to produce state action.
State action doctrine is a significant component of the U.S. Constitution that protects individual fundamental rights from the violation by the government. Although, the concept seems to be pretty straightforward, its application still remains a subject for the arguments and hot debates in the legal world.