InnerChange Litigation

[Christopher Lund]

Yes, but maybe this raises something else I don't understand.  PFM does
not need to be considered a "state actor" for it to be enjoined.  FRCP
65 allows injunctions against anyone in "active concert or
participation" with a liable party.  It can reach PFM, regardless of
whether PFM is a "state actor" and regardless of whether PFM itself is
liable.  
 
Christopher C. Lund
Assistant Professor of Law
Mississippi College School of Law
151 E. Griffith St.
Jackson, MS  39201
(601) 925-7141 (office)
(601) 925-7113 (fax)

>>> marty.lederman at comcast.net 12/4/2007 2:25 PM >>>

This thread reveals an oddity about modern state-action doctrine --
most of the cases in which the Court has developed that doctrine have
involved questions of whether the putatively private actors could be
*enjoined,* not whether they could be sued for damages.  And it's in
that context that the Court has developed its state action factors and
rules.  I'm sure there are some exceptions where money damages were at
issue -- and the attorneys' fees question is certainly interesting --
but none comes to mind just now.


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Brownstein, Alan" <aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu>
> I largely agree with Chip's post, but wonder just how far we would
> extend the delegation to private parties argument. In a case like
Santa
> Fe v. Doe, where a school district delegates responsibility to the
> student body to choose whether a prayer is given at football games
or
> graduation, is the student body liable for choosing to have a prayer
> delivered by a student speaker? 
> 
> Alan Brownstein
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira (Chip)
Lupu
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:31 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: InnerChange Litigation
> 
> PFM was not a state actor just because it accepted the state's money
to
> run this program; many private grantees take government money, and
don't
> thereby become "state actors".  Ordinarily, private grantees are not
> even defendants in these sorts of cases; only state officials are
sued.
> But here PFM was effectively running a wing of the prison (general
> administrative responsibilities, including discipline).  The state
> cannot escape constitutional restrictions (8th A, 14th A, here the
> Establishment Clause) by delegating power to run prisons to private
> parties.
> 
> That delegation is what makes PFM a state actor, liable in the same
ways
> as the state (and probably without any of the immunities).  And
that's
> why (contrary to its press release) PFM can't keep running this
> particular program, even if no money changes hands between the state
and
> PFM.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu 
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw 
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can 
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
forward the 
> messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu 
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071204/7871b8be/attachment.htm