The Court held that a public access station was not considered a state actor for purposes of evaluating free speech issues in a 5–4 ruling split along ideological lines.

Prior to the Court's decision, analysts believed that the case had the potential to determine whether limitations on free speech on social media violate First Amendment rights.

"[4] On appeal to the Second Circuit, two of the three judges ruled for Halleck and Melendez, citing Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissent in Denver Area which suggested that public access systems, which were mandated by the government, should be treated as state actors, and therefore could not regulate free speech.

[7] While the case was directly about public access television, several analysts believed the Court would also review how companies that control social media on the Internet would be treated under similar considerations.

[9][10] Ultimately, the decision was more limited, ruling on the status of MNN rather than whether the actions directly affect free speech; thus the case was not expected to have a major impact on social media.

The Justices' questions centered around whether the city had a property interest in MNN's channel space and what precisely New York's "first come, first serve" rule meant practically.

[15] The opinion compares the facts of the case to prior court precedent such as Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, Moose Lodge No.

However, an appended footnote in the opinion indicated that some members of the Court had an interest in deciding "whether legislatures can constitutionally require cable operators to cede editorial control of the content of some of their channels in an effort to promote a more robust and inclusive public sphere.

"[16] The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor believed that MNN “stepped into the City's shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other.