Casinos In Las Vegas

FN19. Venetian Casino Resort v. Local Joint Executive Bd. of Las Vegas, 45 F.Supp.2d 1027 (D.Nev.1999).

The "public function" doctrine created in Marsh is a means of satisfying the state action requirement. The doctrine provides: The state cannot free itself from the limitations of the Constitution in the operation of its governmental functions merely by delegating certain functions to otherwise private individuals. If private actors assume the role of the state by engaging in these governmental functions then they subject themselves to the same limitations on their freedom of action as would be imposed upon the state itself. [FN20]

FN20. 2 R. Rotunda, J. Nowak & J. Young, Constitutional Law, § 16.2, at 771 (1999).

We conclude that S.O.C./Hillsboro rely on an unintended and overly broad reading of Marsh v. Mirage Hotel [FN21] (holding that "company town" was the equivalent of government for purposes of First Amendment).

FN21. 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946).

First, Marsh has been consistently interpreted to apply to a very narrow set of facts where the entity in question performed " 'the full spectrum of municipal powers and stood in the shoes of the State.' " [FN22]

FN22. Mirage Casino v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 519, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976) (quoting Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 568-69, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972)) (rejecting sweeping interpretation of Marsh; overruling Amalgamated Food Emp. Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 and holding that there is no First Amendment right in private shopping center); accord Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 159, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978) (emphasizing the limits of the Marsh doctrine).