Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawState ActionSection 1983state actionunder color of state law§ 1983private schoolpublic funding

Facts

New Perspectives School was a nonprofit private school located on privately owned property and operated by a private board whose members were not public officials. Nearly all of its students were referred by public entities, and in recent years at least 90% and in one year 99% of its operating budget came from public funds; the school was also subject to various regulations tied to that funding. Petitioners, five teachers and one vocational counselor, were discharged after disputes involving school policy and protected expression, and they sued under § 1983 claiming their discharges violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The state regulators imposed few requirements on personnel matters, and the state committee involved in funding the counselor position had only limited authority to approve qualifications for initial hiring and did not participate in the discharge decision.

Issue

Whether a privately operated school, whose income was derived primarily from public sources and which was regulated by public authorities, acted under color of state law when it discharged certain employees. More specifically, whether the discharge decisions were fairly attributable to the State for purposes of § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

In § 1983 cases, the "under color of state law" inquiry is the same as the Fourteenth Amendment state action inquiry: whether the alleged deprivation is fairly attributable to the State. A private decision is ordinarily attributable to the State only when the State has exercised coercive power, provided significant encouragement so that the choice is deemed to be that of the State, or when the private entity performs a function that is traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State; extensive public funding, extensive regulation, performance of a public service, or a contractual relationship with the government, without more, do not by themselves make private personnel decisions state action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeshore Learning Center, a privately owned nonprofit in Milwaukee, serves teenagers referred by local public districts who cannot be accommodated in ordinary classrooms. Ninety-six percent of its operating budget comes from public tuition payments, but its board is privately selected and no public official participated when director Elena Morris fired teacher Daniel Ruiz after he criticized the center's discipline policy.

If Ruiz sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a First Amendment violation, which is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that in § 1983 cases, the under-color-of-state-law inquiry is the same as the Fourteenth Amendment state-action inquiry: whether the challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the State. A private school's receipt of almost all of its funds from public sources does not by itself convert its personnel decisions into state action. The focus is on the specific firing decision, and here no state coercion, significant encouragement, or other attribution to the State is present.