[Wynton]

In deciding whether the actions of a private entity, such as the NASDR, are “fairly attributable” to the government, thereby implicating the Fifth Amendment, the question has historically been characterized as depending upon whether “there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity.” Jackson v Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974). In Blum v Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004-05 (1982), the Supreme Court said that a sufficiently close nexus will be found where either (1) the state ‘has exercised coercive power [over a private decision] or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State,” or (2) “the private entity has exercised powers that are ‘traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State.” See also, Desiderio v NASD, 191 F.3d 198, 206-07 (2nd Cir. 1999). More recently, in Brentwood Academy v Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 288 (2002), the Supreme Court elaborated that a “host of facts” bear on attributing State action to private conduct, including not just when the state has exercised “coercive power” or “provided significant encouragement,” but also when it the private action is “entwined with governmental policies,’ or when government is ‘entwined in [its] management or control.’”

----------

Hey, I never claimed it would be interesting, but this was what came up when I pasted.