Answer Initial Discussion question 250 words. Respond to 4 classmates 250 Words each
For your initial discussion this week, discuss:
1) What is the state action doctrine?
2) Find and share a news article in which someone is alleging the violation of his or her Constitutional rights. Apply the state action doctrine to the allegations. Does the state action doctrine apply? Could the complaint about the violation of Constitutional rights be valid?
Classmate 1 Adam: Greetings Classmates and welcome to my week 4 post. This week’s topic (at least to me) was slightly more complicated than previous weeks due to the simple yet complex nature of the state action doctrine. So first off, what is the state action doctrine?
Well, it is a key component of the Fourteenth Amendment or a threshold requirement that must be satisfied before triggering protection of our fundamental rights. The state action doctrine does not protect the rights of individuals to be free of governmental control, but rather the right of the people to democratically determine, for themselves, what kind of society they wish to live in. Out of all of the material I read on the topic, I have come out feeling like the true purpose of the state action doctrine is to serve the principle of democratic choice, meaning that the doctrine carves out certain fields within which the people have the right to democratically govern themselves.
Moving on in this week’s topic, I found an article in which someone was alleging violation of their constitutional rights. In the article I chose, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a case over whether to make it easier to hold municipalities liable for civil rights violations committed by their police, rejecting an appeal involving a man fatally shot by an officer in Ohio.
An application of this state action doctrine is seen here and is connected with the rule that only injuries resulting from intentional actions of the state create a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, when the state’s action was not intended to inflict the injury complained of, the courts here refuse to acknowledge that the state conduct is its legal cause. Essentially we have the state action doctrine stopping the 14th amendment rights from kicking in because the state law provides for the police officers to be able to take x,y, and z actions and eventually led up to the point that is being contested.
Honestly, in my perspective, the complaint about the violation of constitutional rights could absolutely be valid however in this situation we clearly have the state action doctrine applying and protecting this police officer from being further persecuted.
I look forward to reading a lot more about this topic this week and to reading others postings to gain more insight on the topic. Thank you for reading.
Classmate 2 Sherron: Good morning,
The state action doctrine refers to the requirement that in order for a plaintiff to have standing to sue over a law being violated, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the government (local, state, or federal), was responsible for the violation, rather than a private actor.
The case that I chose to discuss this week is Ashker v. Governor of California. This case is interesting because the state action doctrine does apply and it does not apply. It confused me at first because the prisoners filed suit against the Governor of California but the case deals with the violation at California’s Pelican Bay State Prison which is controlled by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The case charges that prolonged solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and that the absence of meaningful review for SHU placement violates the prisoners’ rights to due process. Security Housing Unit (SHU) prisoners spend 22 ½ to 24 hours every day in a cramped, concrete, windowless cell. They are denied telephone calls, contact visits, and vocational, recreational, or educational programming[1]. Hundreds of Pelican Bay SHU prisoners have been isolated under these conditions for over 10 years and dozens for more than 20 years, causing harmful and predictable psychological deterioration. In fact, solitary confinement for as little as 15 days is now widely recognized to cause lasting psychological damage and can constitute torture under international law.
The state action doctrine applies in this case because the Pelican Bay State Prison is a government entity and is controlled by the Governor of California. If this was a privatize prison, the state doctrine would not apply because it would be a private sector. The psychological harm caused by the prolonged confinement was cruel and unusual under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Classmate 3 Jeffery: The State Action Doctrine is a constitutional concept that needs to be understood more in society. The doctrine delineates that Constitution governs the actions of the Government and not private citizens. The language of the Constitution is written towards directing what states and state actors are unable to do. The Fourteenth Amendment hammers home the point of the State Action Doctrine. The Fourteen Amendment states “NO STATE SHALL make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US”. The State Action Doctrine does not only apply to actions taken by Federal and State governments but municipal and any actors working under the law.
For example, the State Action Doctrine applies to public school systems. If a teacher unlawfully suppressed a student’s First Amendment rights, that student would have a claim to First Amendment protections against the Government. An example of this occurred in Maryland when a public-school student refused to follow a teacher’s assignment and profess that their Christian beliefs were inferior to Islam. In contrast, a private school system is within its right to practice religious beliefs as the school and staff are non-government actors.
In May 2020 Laura Loomer attempted to sue Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google for what she believed was a First Amendment violation. This was in response to her Twitter account being blocked and other social media being restricted for her anti-Muslim hate speech. She chained herself to Twitter headquarters and filed a suit through District Court against the company. Her case was dismissed and she appealed through the United States Court of Appeals in Washington D.C who affirmed the District Court and threw the case out.
A popular misconception in society is that social media companies violate the First Amendment when they place restrictions on what you can post. There are several Facebook groups and class-action lawsuits calling to sue Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg who they believe to be a violation of their First Amendment rights. These people all consistently fail because social media and technology companies are private corporations separate from the United States Government. They do not operate as an actor of any Government and have absolute latitude over the content they wish to show.
The Fourteen Amendment and the State Action Doctrine make clear that the Constitution only governs the Government and its actors. Facebook or Twitter can ban or restrict your content if you violate their terms. They are the interpreters of their own terms and if you violate them, they can suppress your content. I believe this separation is proper and is good that private companies are separate from the Constitution. Private companies already follow laws passed by Congress and their states, they should be allowed to operate and expand in their own vision.
References:
Adi Robertson, Social media bias lawsuits keep failing in court, The Verge (May. 27, 2020), https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss.
Erik Larson, Twitter, Facebook Win Appeal in Anticonservative-Bias Suit, Yahoo Finance (May. 27, 2020), https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-facebook-win-appeal-over-151940896.html.
Maryland High School Punishes Christian Student For Refusing To Profess Her Faith In Islam, Threatens To Arrest Her Father For Making A Stink About It, Shoebat (Jan. 30, 2016), https://shoebat.com/2016/01/30/maryland-high-school-punishes-student-for-refusing-to-profess-her-faith-in-islam-threatens-to-arrest-her-father-for-complaining/.
U.S. Const. amend XIV.
Classmate 4 Crystal: The state action doctrine is a policy that requires a plaintiff only being able to suggest a law or right has been violated if the actual government was responsible as oppose to a private actor or person. This means that the local, state, or federal government has to have acted in the case. This doctrine suggests that items such as the Fourteenth Amendment only applies when it comes to the State vs. an individual as opposed to an individual versus another individual.
For this weeks post, I am glad that I was able to work ahead because the state action doctrine can be applies as it relates to the student speech case that is being heard before the Supreme Court. The article I found as it relates to this case by the Chicago Tribune (Sherman, 2021), gives information on the Brandi Levy case. This then 14 year old sent a “Snap” off duty that had profanity, which was then given to coaches at the school. She was suspended from the cheerleading team. Because of her arguing that this violated her rights as it relates to Speech. This case is being considered one of the most significant cases on student speech in more than 50 years. The question rose as to whether schools (public) can discipline their students on things that happen, or are said, why they are not on the school campus. There was an argument on this case that cited the Des Moines, Iowa case that ruled that students “don’t shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Sherman, 2021). Levy’s parents filed a federal lawsuit based on the speech rights being violated.
This case has the state action doctrine applied to it because the school is a public school and is therefore a part of the government. If the school was a private school, it would be different. The state action does apply because the individual is claiming a government entity (the school) is at fault. I do believe that the complaint about the violation of freedom of Speech is valid and the parents have a leg to stand on.
Reference and the Article:
Sherman, M. (2021, April 26). A teen was suspended from her cheerleading team for cursing on a Snapchat video. now she’ll be heard by the Supreme Court. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-supreme-court-snapchat-profanity-schools-20210426-v7cd4pbeejhhbjtj5sovrrggyi-story.html
