Legal Definitions - public-function rationale

The public-function rationale is a legal principle used to determine when a private entity's actions should be treated as if they were government actions, thereby subjecting them to constitutional limitations that normally only apply to the government.

This rationale typically applies when a private entity performs a function that has been traditionally and exclusively performed by the government. If a private entity is found to be performing such a "public function," its conduct may be considered "state action," meaning it must comply with constitutional provisions like due process, equal protection, or free speech, just as a government agency would.

Here are some examples illustrating the public-function rationale:

• Private Operation of a Correctional Facility: Imagine a state contracts with a private corporation to manage and operate one of its prisons. An inmate in this privately run facility alleges that the prison staff denied them due process during a disciplinary hearing, resulting in a loss of privileges. Normally, constitutional rights like due process only apply to government actions.

  How it illustrates the rationale: Operating a prison and enforcing disciplinary rules within it is a function traditionally and exclusively performed by the government. Under the public-function rationale, even though a private company employs the staff, their actions in managing inmates and enforcing rules are considered "state action." This means the private prison staff must adhere to the same constitutional standards (like due process) as if they were government employees, allowing the inmate to pursue a claim for a constitutional violation.

• Private Administration of Public Elections: A city, seeking to streamline its processes, hires a private technology company to manage all aspects of its municipal elections, including voter registration, ballot distribution, and vote tabulation. A citizen later alleges that the company's voter registration system contained flaws that disproportionately prevented certain eligible voters from registering, thereby infringing upon their right to vote.

  How it illustrates the rationale: Administering public elections is a fundamental and traditionally governmental responsibility. The public-function rationale would apply here because the private company is performing an essential governmental task. Consequently, the company's actions in managing the election would be subject to the same constitutional scrutiny (e.g., protections against voter disenfranchisement, equal protection) as if the city government itself were directly running the election.

• Private Security Force Acting as Sole Law Enforcement: Consider a large, privately owned residential community that employs its own security force, which is the only entity providing law enforcement services within the community. This private force patrols streets, investigates crimes, and makes arrests, effectively acting as the police department for the residents. A resident is arrested by this private force for peacefully protesting a community rule on a common area within the development, claiming a violation of their First Amendment free speech rights.

  How it illustrates the rationale: Providing general law enforcement, maintaining public order, and making arrests are traditionally exclusive functions of the government. The public-function rationale would argue that because this private security force is performing these comprehensive law enforcement roles for the entire community, it is acting as a state actor. Therefore, its actions, such as arresting a protester, would be subject to constitutional limitations like the First Amendment, which typically only restrict government actions.