NAACP v. Patterson :: 357 U.S. 449 (1958) :: US LAW US Supreme Court Center
- Robert L. Carter (plaintiffs)
- John Marshall Harlan II (Author)
- Earl Warren
- Hugo Lafayette Black
- Felix Frankfurter
- William Orville Douglas
- Harold Hitz Burton
- Tom C. Clark
- John Marshall Harlan II
- William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
- Charles Evans Whittaker
As the employer pointed out, the lawsuit seemed to be a fairly transparent try and curtail its First Amendment rights, instead of simply an effort to enforce the business regulation. The NAACP refused to conform with a courtroom order to provide the names and addresses of its Alabama agents and contributors, although it presented to try to meet the qualification requirements. However, its failure to comply with the invention order supposed that it become held in contempt. The NAACP tried to push aside this order however turned into prevented beneath nation law from attempting to push aside an order even as it remained in contempt.
On its first go to to the Supreme Court, the contempt locating turned into struck down. Arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court made that choice based totally on inaccurate statistics, the country Supreme Court reinstated it. The U.S. Supreme Court once more reversed, at which level the NAACP tried to set up a listening to on the deserves. This changed into denied on the kingdom-courtroom degree and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case become remanded to nation court and positioned in the authority of the federal district court docket within the occasion that the kingdom courts continued to withstand. When the Alabama courtroom did evaluation the case on the deserves, it observed the NAACP in violation of the country regulation and ordered it to stop sports there. Higher courts affirmed the judgment with out addressing the NAACP's constitutional declare, so the case proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court for the fourth time in 5 years. Lawyers
This unanimous opinion ruled that the NAACP become not required to launch its club list to the kingdom because of the threat to which losing their anonymity might reveal the individuals. Their First and Fourteenth Amendment proper to freedom of affiliation furthermore trumped state regulation, and revealing the names could be anticipated to interfere with that right. While the kingdom may have had an hobby in having access to the names, this become not sufficient to counterbalance constitutional protections.Case Commentary