The state action doctrine hinges on the Fourteenth Amendment that prohibits discrimination and ensure individual rights, which is strongly communicated to all state government actions of the “executive, legislature and judiciary at the state and federal levels, which correlates with the Equal Protection Clause to the states” (Cornell Law, 1992, para. 1). The state action doctrine does not apply to non-governmental issues like private businesses unless it is state-regulated or involved. According to Jaggi, 2017 there are two main purposes of the state action doctrine: 1) “to protect individual liberties by ensuring that private action is not subject to constitutional limitations; 2) it shall promote federalism and separation of powers by limiting the federal judiciaryâ€s control over states” (Tribe (1988) 1691) (para. 1).

There are exceptions to the state action doctrine enacted by the Supreme Court Justices, which is applied if an individualâ€s right has been violated. For example, if a privately owned mall or private restaurant refuses to serve an African American customer, the state doctrine law is activated, under certain circumstances where their actions will be treated as a state action law instead of private action (Jaggi, 2017). The exceptions to the state action doctrine have two forms: “public function and entanglement” (Chemerinsky (2009) 552; Quint 267 et seq) (Jaggi, 2017, para. 3). An example of public function suggests” the actor must be a state actor, if it performs the customary functions of the government that determines the qualification of eligible voters in its primary election (Smith v. Allwright (1944) 660(US) (Jaggi, 2017, para 3).

On the other hand, the entanglement exception suggests that “the private actor must be recognized as a state actor if the state has insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the private actor and is recognized as a joint participant in the confronted act” (Jaggi, 2017, para. 3). The Fourteenth Amendment is applied when the state action has allowed discrimination practices that prohibit an individualâ€s constitutional rights of equal protection and due process (Jaggi, 2017). 2. Find a new article of an alleged violation of their Constitution Rights. Apply the state action doctrine to their allegations. Does the state action doctrine apply? Could these individuals have valid complaints about the violation of Constitutional Rights?

In the article according to Lyons, President Trump attempts to eliminate the mandatory citizenship for immigrant families that give birth to a newborn in the U.S. In addition, he desires to “indefinitely detain families of immigrants with children” to prevent them from becoming citizens in the U.S. (Lyons, 2019, para. 1). Under the state action doctrine, the 14th Amendment suggests that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subjects to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” (Lyons, 2019, para. 2). This is evident that immigrants who give birth to a newborn while living in the U.S. the child have a constitutional right to become citizens of the U.S., based on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Yes, the immigrants or foreigners have a valid complaint.

References

Cornell Law School. (1992). State action. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-coran/amendment-14/section-1./state-action. Accessed March 20, 2020.

Jaggi, S. (2017). State Action Doctrine. Retrieved from oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpecco/law-mepecco1-e473

Lyons, P. (2019). Trump wants to abolish birthright citizenship. Can he do that? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/birthright-c…