, NAACP v. Patterson :: 357 U.S. 449 (1958) :: US LAW US Supreme Court Center

NAACP v. Patterson :: 357 U.S. 449 (1958) :: US LAW US Supreme Court Center

    USLaw.Site Opinion Summary and Annotations

    Annotation

    Primary Holding
    To require disclosure of an affiliation's membership lists, a kingdom ought to have a compelling justification for this infringement on the proper of unfastened association. Facts
    Alabama imposed a qualification requirement on entities from outdoor the country that they had to satisfy before doing enterprise there. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which become a New York non-earnings agency, believed that the statute did now not cover it and for that reason did not comply with it. The NAACP participated in numerous civil rights activities in Alabama for the duration of the Nineteen Fifties, consisting of the Sir Bernard Law Bus Boycott and funding applications for African-American college students looking for to wait the nation college. In reaction, kingdom Lawyer General Patterson sought to have the kingdom court put off the NAACP from the kingdom for violating the law on out-of-nation groups. Tellingly, the court docket order that turned into sought and that issued nearly without delay no longer most effective forbade the NAACP to maintain doing business in Alabama however also prohibited it from seeking to qualify under the law.

    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
    • Robert L. Carter (plaintiffs)
    Opinions

    Majority

    • 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

    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
    The proper of freedom of affiliation could be unreasonably constricted by using requiring disclosure of the names on this context due to the fact humans could be less likely to enroll in the NAACP in Alabama beneath the fear that they will be the victims of retaliation.
    Read extra

    U.S. Supreme Court

    NAACP v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

    National Association for the Advancement of

    Colored People v. Patterson

    No. 91

    Argued January 15-16, 1958

    Decided June 30, 1958

    357 U.S. 449

    Syllabus

    Petitioner is a nonprofit club organization prepared under the legal guidelines of New York for the motive of advancing the welfare of Negroes. It operates via chartered associates which can be unbiased unincorporated associations, with club therein equivalent to club in petitioner. It had local affiliates in Alabama, and opened an office of its personal there with out complying with an Alabama statute which, with a few exceptions, calls for a overseas business enterprise to qualify earlier than doing business inside the State via filing its corporate charter and designating a administrative center and an agent to get hold of provider of technique. Alleging that petitioner s sports have been inflicting irreparable harm to the citizens of the State for which crook prosecution and civil moves at law afforded no good enough remedy, the State introduced an equity in shape in a kingdom courtroom to enjoin petitioner from engaging in further sports in, and to oust it from, the State. The court issued an ex parte order restraining petitioner, pendente lite, from carrying out in addition activities within the State and from taking any steps to qualify to do business there. Petitioner moved to dissolve the restraining order, and the court, on the State s motion, ordered the manufacturing of many of petitioner s records, such as its membership lists. After some put off, petitioner produced extensively all of the data known as for except its club lists. It was adjudged in contempt, and fined $100,000 for failure to produce the lists. The State Supreme Court denied certiorari to study the contempt judgment, and this Court granted certiorari.

    Held:

    1. Denial of comfort by way of the State Supreme Court did not rest on an adequate country ground, and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner s federal claims. Pp. 357 U. S. 454-458.

    2. Petitioner has a right to assert on behalf of its participants a claim that they may be entitled beneath the Federal Constitution to be included from being compelled by means of the State to reveal their association with the Association. Pp. 357 U. S. 458-460.

    Page 357 U. S. 450

    three. Immunity from nation scrutiny of petitioner s club lists is here so related to the proper of petitioner s members to pursue their lawful non-public pursuits privately and to accomplice freely with others in doing in order to come in the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State has failed to show a controlling justification for the deterrent impact at the free amusement of the proper to partner which disclosure of petitioner s club lists is in all likelihood to have. Accordingly, the judgment of civil contempt and the first-class which resulted from petitioner s refusal to supply its club lists ought to fall. Pp. 357 U. S. 460-466.

    (a) Freedom to engage in association for the advancement of ideals and ideas is an inseparable issue of the "liberty" confident by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 460-461.

    (b) In the occasions of this example, forced disclosure of petitioner s membership lists is probable to represent an powerful restraint on its members freedom of affiliation. Pp. 357 U. S. 461-463.

    (c) Whatever hobby the State might also have in acquiring the names of petitioner s ordinary contributors, it has not been shown to be enough to triumph over petitioner s constitutional objections to the manufacturing order. Pp. 357 U. S. 463-466.

    four. The query whether or not the country court docket s temporary restraining order stopping petitioner from soliciting guide within the State violates the Fourteenth Amendment isn't nicely before this Court, because the deserves of the debate have no longer been surpassed on by means of the nation courts. Pp. 357 U. S. 466-467.

    265 Ala. 349, 91 So. second 214, reversed, and reason remanded.

    Page 357 U. S. 451

    U.S. Supreme Court

    NAACP v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

    National Association for the Advancement of

    Colored People v. Patterson

    No. 91

    Argued January 15-16, 1958

    Decided June 30, 1958

    357 U.S. 449

    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

    Syllabus

    Petitioner is a nonprofit club company prepared below the legal guidelines of New York for the motive of advancing the welfare of Negroes. It operates through chartered affiliates that are independent unincorporated institutions, with membership therein equivalent to club in petitioner. It had neighborhood affiliates in Alabama, and opened an workplace of its own there with out complying with an Alabama statute which, with some exceptions, requires a overseas business enterprise to qualify earlier than doing business in the State by means of filing its corporate constitution and designating a workplace and an agent to receive carrier of method. Alleging that petitioner s sports had been inflicting irreparable harm to the citizens of the State for which criminal prosecution and civil actions at law afforded no adequate remedy, the State introduced an fairness healthy in a nation court docket to enjoin petitioner from carrying out further activities in, and to oust it from, the State. The court docket issued an ex parte order restraining petitioner, pendente lite, from accomplishing similarly sports within the State and from taking any steps to qualify to do business there. Petitioner moved to dissolve the restraining order, and the courtroom, on the State s motion, ordered the manufacturing of a lot of petitioner s records, inclusive of its club lists. After some put off, petitioner produced significantly all of the facts referred to as for besides its membership lists. It become adjudged in contempt, and fined $a hundred,000 for failure to supply the lists. The State Supreme Court denied certiorari to study the contempt judgment, and this Court granted certiorari.

    Held:

    1. Denial of remedy by using the State Supreme Court did now not relaxation on an adequate state floor, and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner s federal claims. Pp. 357 U. S. 454-458.

    2. Petitioner has a proper to claim on behalf of its contributors a claim that they are entitled below the Federal Constitution to be protected from being compelled with the aid of the State to reveal their association with the Association. Pp. 357 U. S. 458-460.

    Page 357 U. S. 450

    3. Immunity from nation scrutiny of petitioner s membership lists is here so associated with the right of petitioner s individuals to pursue their lawful personal hobbies privately and to partner freely with others in doing with the intention to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State has failed to expose a controlling justification for the deterrent impact at the unfastened amusement of the proper to partner which disclosure of petitioner s membership lists is probable to have. Accordingly, the judgment of civil contempt and the fine which resulted from petitioner s refusal to supply its membership lists need to fall. Pp. 357 U. S. 460-466.

    (a) Freedom to interact in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable element of the "liberty" confident by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 460-461.

    (b) In the situations of this situation, forced disclosure of petitioner s membership lists is likely to represent an effective restraint on its individuals freedom of affiliation. Pp. 357 U. S. 461-463.

    (c) Whatever hobby the State might also have in obtaining the names of petitioner s regular contributors, it has no longer been shown to be enough to overcome petitioner s constitutional objections to the production order. Pp. 357 U. S. 463-466.

    4. The question whether the nation court s transient restraining order preventing petitioner from soliciting assist inside the State violates the Fourteenth Amendment isn't always nicely earlier than this Court, because the merits of the controversy have not been surpassed on by using the country courts. Pp. 357 U. S. 466-467.

    265 Ala. 349, 91 So. second 214, reversed, and motive remanded.

    Page 357 U. S. 451

    MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

    We review from the point of view of its validity below the Federal Constitution a judgment of civil contempt entered against petitioner, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in the courts of Alabama. The query offered is whether or not Alabama, constantly with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, can compel petitioner to expose to the State s Lawyer General the names and addresses of all its Alabama members and agents, without regard to their positions or functions in the Association. The judgment of contempt changed into primarily based upon petitioner s refusal to comply fully with a court order requiring in part the production of club lists. Petitioner s claim is that the order, inside the situations shown via this report, violated rights assured to petitioner and its contributors beneath the Constitution .

    Alabama has a statute, similar to the ones of many other States, which requires a overseas enterprise, except as exempted, to qualify earlier than doing business via filing its corporate constitution with the Secretary of State and designating a place of job and an agent to get hold of carrier of manner. The statute imposes a satisfactory on a employer transacting intrastate business earlier than qualifying, and affords for criminal prosecution of officials of one of these employer. Ala.Code, 1940, Tit. 10, §§ 192-198. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a nonprofit membership business enterprise prepared below the laws of New York. Its functions, fostered on a national foundation, are the ones indicated by way of its name, * and it operates

    Page 357 U. S. 452

    through chartered associates that are impartial unincorporated associations, with club therein equal to membership in petitioner. The first Alabama affiliates were chartered in 1918. Since that point, the pursuits of the Association had been superior thru sports of its affiliates, and, in 1951, the Association itself opened a nearby workplace in Alabama, at which it hired supervisory humans and one clerical worker. The Association has never complied with the qualification statute, from which it taken into consideration itself exempt.

    In 1956, the Lawyer General of Alabama added an equity fit within the State Circuit Court, Bernard Law Montgomery County, to enjoin the Association from conducting in addition activities inside, and to oust it from, the State. Among different matters, the bill in fairness alleged that the Association had opened a regional office and had prepared various affiliates in Alabama; had recruited members and solicited contributions within the State; had given financial aid and supplied legal assistance to Negro college students in search of admission to the state university, and had supported a Negro boycott of the bus strains in 1st viscount montgomery of alamein to compel the seating of passengers with out regard to race. The bill recited that the Association, with the aid of continuing to do commercial enterprise in Alabama without complying with the qualification statute, changed into

    ". . . causing irreparable harm to the belongings and civil rights of the residents and citizens of the State of Alabama for which crook prosecution and civil movements at law have enough money no good enough comfort. . . ."

    On the day the criticism became filed, the Circuit Court issued ex parte an order restraining the Association, pendente lite, from engaging in

    Page 357 U. S. 453

    further sports in the State and forbidding it to take any steps to qualify itself to do enterprise therein.

    Petitioner demurred to the allegations of the bill and moved to dissolve the restraining order. It contended that its sports did now not problem it to the qualification necessities of the statute and that, in any occasion, what the State sought to perform via its match might violate rights to freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed beneath the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the US. Before the date set for a hearing in this motion, the State moved for the manufacturing of a massive quantity of the Association s facts and papers, such as bank statements, leases, deeds, and statistics containing the names and addresses of all Alabama "contributors" and "marketers" of the Association. It alleged that all such files were necessary for good enough training for the hearing, in view of petitioner s denial of the conduct of intrastate business within the which means of the qualification statute. Over petitioner s objections, the court docket ordered the production of a vast a part of the asked records, consisting of the club lists, and postponed the hearing at the restraining order to a date later than the time ordered for manufacturing.

    Thereafter, petitioner filed its answer to the invoice in equity. It admitted its Alabama activities significantly as alleged within the grievance and that it had no longer certified to do business in the State. Although still disclaiming the statute s software to it, petitioner offered to qualify if the bar from qualification made a part of the restraining order were lifted, and it submitted with the solution an done set of the forms required by the statute. However petitioner did no longer observe the production order, and for this failure, became adjudged in civil contempt and fined $10,000. The contempt judgment provided that the great could be problem to reduction or remission if compliance

    Page 357 U. S. 454

    have been coming near near within five days, however in any other case could be improved to $one hundred,000.

    At the cease of the 5-day length, petitioner produced drastically all of the data known as for with the aid of the manufacturing order besides its club lists, as to which it contended that Alabama couldn't constitutionally compel disclosure, and moved to adjust or vacate the contempt judgment, or stay its execution pending appellate evaluation. This movement became denied. While a similar live application, which turned into later denied. changed into pending before the Supreme Court of Alabama, the Circuit Court made a further order adjudging petitioner in continuing contempt and increasing the exceptional already imposed to $100,000. Under Alabama law, see Jacoby v. Goetter, Weil & Co., seventy four Ala. 427, the effect of the contempt adjudication was to foreclose petitioner from acquiring a hearing at the deserves of the underlying ouster motion, or from taking any steps to dissolve the transient restraining order which were issued ex parte, till it purged itself of contempt. But cf. Harrison v. St. Louis & S.F. R. Co., 232 U. S. 318; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409.

    The State Supreme Court thereafter two times disregarded petitions for certiorari to review this very last contempt judgment, the first time, ninety one So. second 221, for insufficiency of the petition s allegations and the second one time on procedural grounds. 265 Ala. 349, 91 So. 2nd 214. We granted certiorari due to the importance of the constitutional questions supplied. 353 U.S. 972.

    I

    We address ourselves first to respondent s competition that we lack jurisdiction due to the fact the denial of certiorari by using the Supreme Court of Alabama rests on an independent nonfederal ground, specifically, that petitioner, in making use of for certiorari, had pursued the incorrect appellate

    Page 357 U. S. 455

    remedy below state law. Respondent acknowledges that our jurisdiction is not defeated if the nonfederal ground depended on by means of the state court docket is "without any honest or sizable guide," Ward v. Board of County Commissioners, 253 U. S. 17, 253 U. S. 22. It as a consequence turns into our obligation to envision,

    ". . . in order that constitutional guaranties may as it should be be enforced, whether the asserted non-federal ground independently and appropriately helps the judgment."

    Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765, 282 U. S. 773.

    The Alabama Supreme Court held that it could not keep in mind the constitutional issues underlying the contempt judgment which related to the energy of the State to reserve manufacturing of club lists because evaluate with the aid of certiorari was restricted to times

    ". . . where the courtroom lacked jurisdiction of the intending, or wherein, on the face of it, the order disobeyed become void, or where procedural requirements with appreciate to quotation for contempt etc had been not located, or where the reality of contempt isn't always sustained. . . ."

    265 Ala. at 353, ninety one So. second at 217. The right manner for petitioner to gain assessment of the judgment in light of its constitutional claims, said the court docket, changed into through manner of mandamus to quash the discovery order prior to the contempt adjudication. Because of petitioner s failure to pursue this treatment, its task to the contempt order became limited to the above grounds. Apparently now not deeming the constitutional objections to attract into query whether, "at the face of it, the order disobeyed became void," the court docket determined no illness within the contempt judgment underneath this restricted scope of evaluation. At the same time, it did move on to recollect petitioner s constitutional challenge to the order to supply club lists, but observed it untenable, given that membership lists have been no longer privileged towards disclosure pursuant to reasonable kingdom needs and for the reason that privilege in opposition to self-incrimination became no longer to be had to groups.

    Page 357 U. S. 456

    We are not able to reconcile the procedural preserving of the Alabama Supreme Court in the gift case with its beyond unambiguous holdings as to the scope of evaluation available upon a writ of certiorari addressed to a contempt judgment. As early as 1909, that court docket stated in the sort of case, Ex parte Dickers, 162 Ala. 272, at 276, 279-280, 50 So. 218, at 220, 221:

    "Originally, on certiorari, only the query of jurisdiction changed into inquired into; however this limit has been removed, and now the court docket examines the law questions worried inside the case which may additionally affect its deserves. . . ."

    "* * * *"

    ". . . [T]he judgment of this court is that the right way to study the motion of the courtroom in cases of this type is via certiorari, and no longer with the aid of enchantment."

    "We think that certiorari is a better remedy than mandamus, because the office of a mandamus is to require the decrease courtroom or decide to behave, and now not to correct errors or to reverse judicial action, . . . whereas, in a intending by certiorari, mistakes of law inside the judicial movement of the lower court docket can be inquired into and corrected."

    This announcement become in full accord with the earlier case of Ex parte Boscowitz, 84 Ala. 463, four So. 279, and the exercise within the later Alabama cases, until we attain the present one, seems to had been entirely regular with this rule. See Ex parte Wheeler, 231 Ala. 356, 358, a hundred sixty five So. 74, seventy five-seventy six; Ex parte Blakey, 240 Ala. 517, 199 So. 857; Ex parte Sellers, 250 Ala. 87, 88, 33 So. second 349, 350. For instance, in Ex parte Morris, 252 Ala. 551, 42 So. 2nd 17, decided as past due as 1949, the petitioner had been held in contempt for his refusal to obey a courtroom order to produce names of members of the Ku Klux Klan. On writ of certiorari, constitutional grounds had been advised in element for

    Page 357 U. S. 457

    reversal of the contempt conviction. In denying the writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court concluded that petitioner have been accorded due method, and, in explaining its denial, the court docket considered and rejected diverse constitutional claims regarding the validity of the order. There became no intimation that the petitioner had selected an beside the point shape of appellate review to reap consideration of all questions of law raised via a contempt judgment.

    The Alabama cases do indicate, as turned into said within the opinion beneath, that an order requiring production of proof ". . . might also be reviewed on petition for mandamus." 265 Ala. at 353, ninety one So. second at 217. (Italics added.) See Ex parte Hart, 240 Ala. 642, 200 So. 783; cf. Ex parte Driver, 255 Ala. 118, 50 So. second 413. But we are able to find out nothing within the prior state instances which suggests that mandamus is the one of a kind remedy for reviewing court orders after disobedience of them has caused contempt judgments. Nor, so far as we will discover, do any of those previous choices imply that the validity of such orders can be drawn in question through manner of certiorari only in instances wherein a defendant had no opportunity to use for mandamus. Although the opinion below suggests no such distinction, the State now argues that this turned into, in fact, the situation in all of the sooner certiorari instances, due to the fact there, the contempt adjudications, unlike here, had accompanied nearly right away the disobedience to the court docket orders. Even if this is certainly the purpose of the Alabama Supreme Court s gift decision, such a neighborhood procedural rule, although it may now seem looking back to shape part of a consistent pattern of tactics to obtain appellate assessment, can not avail the State right here, because petitioner could not fairly be deemed to were apprised of its life. Novelty in procedural requirements cannot be authorised to thwart overview on this Court carried out for through individuals who, in justified reliance upon earlier selections, are looking for vindication in country courts in their federal constitutional

    Page 357 U. S. 458

    rights. Cf. Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673.

    That there was justified reliance here is in addition indicated with the aid of what the Alabama Supreme Court said in disposing of petitioner s motion for a live of the first contempt judgment in this case. This motion, which become filed previous to the final contempt judgment and which confused constitutional troubles, recited that

    "[t]he most effective way in which the [Association] can are seeking for a evaluate of the validity of the order upon which the adjudication of contempt is primarily based [is] with the aid of filing a petition for Writ of Certiorari on this Court."

    In denying the motion, 265 Ala. 356, 357, 91 So. 2nd 220, 221, the Supreme Court said:

    "It is the established rule of this Court that the proper technique of reviewing a judgment for civil contempt of the sort right here involved is by a petition for common law writ of certiorari. . . ."

    "But the petitioner right here has not applied for writ of certiorari, and we do now not feel that the petition [for a stay] currently before us warrants our interference with the judgment of the Circuit Court of 1st viscount montgomery of alamein County here sought to be stayed."

    We hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner s federal claims.

    II

    The Association each urges that it's miles constitutionally entitled to withstand legitimate inquiry into its club lists, and that it is able to assert, on behalf of its members, a proper non-public to them to be protected from forced disclosure with the aid of the State in their association with the Association as found out by means of the membership lists. We suppose that petitioner argues extra accurately the rights of its members, and that its nexus with them is sufficient to allow that it act as their representative before this

    Page 357 U. S. 459

    Court. In so concluding, we reject respondent s argument that the Association lacks status to assert here constitutional rights bearing on the participants, who are not, of route, parties to the litigation.

    To restrict the breadth of troubles which must be treated in particular litigation, this Court has typically insisted that parties rely only on constitutional rights which can be private to themselves. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44; Robertson and Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (1951 ed.), § 298. This rule is related to the wider doctrine that constitutional adjudication should in which feasible be averted. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 297 U. S. 346-348 (concurring opinion). The precept isn't always disrespected where constitutional rights of men and women who are not immediately earlier than the Court couldn't be correctly vindicated besides thru the proper consultant before the Court. See Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, 346 U. S. 255-259; Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 341 U. S. 183-187 (concurring opinion).

    If petitioner s rank-and-file individuals are constitutionally entitled to withhold their reference to the Association regardless of the manufacturing order, it is appear that this proper is well assertable by the Association. To require that or not it's claimed with the aid of the contributors themselves would result in nullification of the right on the very moment of its assertion. Petitioner is the appropriate birthday party to say those rights, because it and its participants are, in every sensible feel, identical. The Association, which gives in its constitution that "[a]ny individual who's in accordance with [its] concepts and rules . . ." might also end up a member, is however the medium via which its man or woman participants seek to make greater effective the expression in their own perspectives. The affordable probability that the Association itself via faded financial support and club can be adversely

    Page 357 U. S. 460

    affected if manufacturing is forced is a further factor pointing toward our holding that petitioner has standing to bitch of the production order on behalf of its members. Cf. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 268 U. S. 534-536.

    III

    We thus attain petitioner s claim that the manufacturing order in the country litigation trespasses upon essential freedoms protected via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner argues that, in view of the statistics and instances shown within the file, the effect of forced disclosure of the club lists can be to abridge the rights of its rank-and-file individuals to have interaction in lawful association in guide in their commonplace beliefs. It contends that governmental motion which, despite the fact that no longer without delay suppressing affiliation, however includes this consequence, may be justified most effective upon some overriding valid hobby of the State.

    Effective advocacy of each public and private factors of view, specifically arguable ones, is undeniably more suitable through institution association, as this Court has extra than as soon as recognized with the aid of remarking upon the close nexus among the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 323 U. S. 530. It is beyond debate that freedom to interact in affiliation for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable issue of the "liberty" assured by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 268 U. S. 666; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 302 U. S. 324; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 355 U. S. 321. Of path, it's miles immaterial whether or not the ideals sought to be advanced by using affiliation pertain to political, monetary, spiritual or cultural matters, and nation motion which may additionally have the

    Page 357 U. S. 461

    effect of curtailing the freedom to companion is subject to the nearest scrutiny.

    The truth that Alabama, to this point as is applicable to the validity of the contempt judgment currently under evaluate, has taken no direct movement, cf. De Jonge v. Oregon, supra; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, to restrict the right of petitioner s individuals to companion freely, does now not give up inquiry into the impact of the manufacturing order. See American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 339 U. S. 402. In the domain of these fundamental liberties, whether or not of speech, press, or affiliation, the decisions of this Court apprehend that abridgment of such rights, even though unintentional, can also inevitably comply with from varied styles of governmental movement. Thus, in Douds, the Court careworn that the law there challenged, which, on its face, sought to adjust hard work unions and to steady stability in interstate trade, could have the practical impact "of discouraging" the exercising of constitutionally included political rights, 339 U.S. at 339 U. S. 393, and it upheld the statute most effective after concluding that the motives advanced for its enactment have been constitutionally enough to justify its viable deterrent effect upon such freedoms. Similar recognition of viable unconstitutional intimidation of the unfastened exercise of the proper to advise underlay this Court s narrow creation of the authority of a congressional committee investigating lobbying and of an Act regulating lobbying, even though in neither case became there an effort to suppress speech. United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, 345 U. S. forty six-47; United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 625-626. The governmental motion challenged can also look like completely unrelated to included liberties. Statutes implementing taxes upon, in place of prohibiting unique hobby were struck down whilst looked as if it would have the consequence of unduly curtailing the liberty of freedom of press assured under the Fourteenth Amendment. Grosjean v. American

    Page 357 U. S. 462

    Press Co., 297 U. S. 233; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105.

    It is infrequently a novel belief that pressured disclosure of affiliation with agencies engaged in advocacy may represent as effective a restraint on freedom of affiliation because the varieties of governmental action within the instances above were concept in all likelihood to provide upon the particular constitutional rights there concerned. This Court has recognized the crucial dating among freedom to companion and privacy in one s institutions. When regarding the various varieties of governmental movement which would possibly intrude with freedom of assembly, it stated in American Communications Assn. v. Douds, supra, at 339 U. S. 402:

    "A requirement that adherents of precise non secular faiths or political parties put on identifying armbands, for example, is obviously of this nature."

    Compelled disclosure of membership in an business enterprise engaged in advocacy of unique beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privateness in group association may also in lots of occasions be quintessential to upkeep of freedom of association, in particular in which a set espouses dissident ideals. Cf. United States v. Rumely, supra, at 345 U. S. fifty six-fifty eight (concurring opinion).

    We suppose that the production order, in the respects right here drawn in question, ought to be regarded as entailing the chance of a substantial restraint upon the exercising via petitioner s members in their proper to freedom of affiliation. Petitioner has made an uncontroverted showing that, on beyond events, revelation of the identity of its rank-and-report members has exposed these contributors to financial reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and different manifestations of public hostility. Under these circumstances, we assume it obvious that forced disclosure of petitioner s Alabama membership is in all likelihood to affect adversely the capacity of petitioner and

    Page 357 U. S. 463

    its contributors to pursue their collective attempt to foster beliefs which they admittedly have the proper to advocate, in that it could set off members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of worry of exposure in their ideals shown thru their institutions and of the outcomes of this publicity.

    It is not enough to reply, as the State does right here, that some thing repressive effect obligatory disclosure of names of petitioner s participants can also have upon participation by way of Alabama residents in petitioner s sports follows now not from nation action, but from personal community pressures. The critical thing is the interplay of governmental and personal movement, for it's miles best after the preliminary exertion of country electricity represented by the production order that personal action takes keep.

    We turn to the very last query -- whether Alabama has validated an interest in acquiring the disclosures it seeks from petitioner which is sufficient to justify the deterrent effect which we have concluded those disclosures may additionally properly have at the unfastened exercising via petitioner s contributors of their constitutionally covered proper of association. See American Communications Assn. v. Douds, supra, at 339 U. S. four hundred; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 161. Such a ". . . subordinating hobby of the State need to be compelling," Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 354 U. S. 265 (concurring opinion). It is not of second that the State has right here acted completely through its judicial branch, for whether or not legislative or judicial, it's miles nevertheless the application of country power which we are requested to scrutinize.

    It is vital to bear in thoughts that petitioner asserts no proper to absolute immunity from nation research, and no right to push aside Alabama s laws. As shown by using its full-size compliance with the manufacturing order, petitioner does no longer deny Alabama s right to attain from it such statistics because the State goals concerning the functions

    Page 357 U. S. 464

    of the Association and its sports in the State. Petitioner has no longer objected to divulging the identity of its contributors who are employed with the aid of or preserve respectable positions with it. It has entreated the rights completely of its regular rank-and-file participants. This is therefore now not analogous to a case concerning the hobby of a State in defensive its residents of their dealings with paid solicitors or retailers of overseas groups via requiring identity. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at 310 U. S. 306; Thomas v. Collins, supra, at 323 U. S. 538.

    Whether there was "justification" on this instance turns entirely on the substantiality of Alabama s interest in acquiring the membership lists. During the path of a hearing earlier than the Alabama Circuit Court on a motion of petitioner to set apart the production order, the State Lawyer General provided at length, below exam with the aid of petitioner, the State s motive for requesting the club lists. The exclusive purpose became to decide whether or not petitioner became engaging in intrastate business in violation of the Alabama foreign employer registration statute, and the club lists were predicted to assist resolve this question. The problems inside the litigation started by way of Alabama by means of its bill in equity were whether the man or woman of petitioner and its sports in Alabama have been together with to make petitioner concern to the registration statute, and whether or not the quantity of petitioner s sports with out qualifying counseled its permanent ouster from the State. Without intimating the slightest view upon the merits of these problems, we're unable to understand that the disclosure of the names of petitioner s rank-and-file contributors has a considerable referring to either of them. As matters stand inside the state court docket, petitioner (1) has admitted its presence and behavior of sports in Alabama considering 1918; (2) has presented to comply in all respects with the state qualification statute, even though retaining

    Page 357 U. S. 465

    its rivalry that the statute does now not observe to it, and (3) has apparently complied satisfactorily with the manufacturing order, besides for the club lists, by using furnishing the Lawyer General with varied business facts, its charter and declaration of purposes, the names of all of its administrators and officers, and with the total range of its Alabama participants and the quantity in their dues. These remaining objects might no longer, in this record, seem subject to constitutional venture, and were furnished, but anything interest the State may also have in acquiring names of ordinary participants has now not been proven to be sufficient to triumph over petitioner s constitutional objections to the production order.

    From what has already been said, we suppose it apparent that Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, can't be relied on in support of the State s role, for that case concerned markedly extraordinary concerns in phrases of the hobby of the State in obtaining disclosure. There, this Court upheld, as implemented to a member of a neighborhood bankruptcy of the Ku Klux Klan, a New York statute requiring any unincorporated affiliation which demanded an oath as a situation to membership to file with kingdom officers copies of its

    ". . . charter, by using laws, regulations, regulations and oath of membership, collectively with a roster of its club and a listing of its officers for the modern year."

    N.Y.Laws 1923, c. 664, §§ fifty three, fifty six. In its opinion, the Court took care to emphasise the nature of the organization which New York sought to adjust. The choice turned into primarily based on the specific character of the Klan s sports, regarding acts of illegal intimidation and violence, which the Court assumed turned into earlier than the country legislature while it enacted the statute, and of which the Court itself took judicial word. Furthermore, the situation before us is extensively distinctive from that during Bryant, due to the fact the agency there had made no effort to conform with

    Page 357 U. S. 466

    any of the requirements of New York s statute, but as a substitute had refused to provide the State with any data as to its local activities.

    We hold that the immunity from nation scrutiny of club lists which the Association claims on behalf of its individuals is right here so associated with the right of the participants to pursue their lawful non-public pursuits privately and to partner freely with others in so doing as to return within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. And we finish that Alabama has fallen brief of showing a controlling justification for the deterrent impact on the loose entertainment of the proper to partner which disclosure of membership lists is probable to have. Accordingly, the judgment of civil contempt and the $100,000 fine which resulted from petitioner s refusal to comply with the manufacturing order in this appreciate ought to fall.

    IV

    Petitioner joins with its attack upon the production order a undertaking to the constitutionality of the State s ex parte temporary restraining order stopping it from soliciting assist in Alabama, and it asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment precludes such state movement. But, as stated above, petitioner has never obtained a listening to at the merits of the ouster in shape, and we do now not don't forget those questions well right here. The Supreme Court of Alabama stated in its denial of the petition for certiorari that such petition raised entirely a query pertinent to the contempt adjudication.

    "The last intention and reason of the litigation is to determine the right of the country to enjoin petitioners from doing commercial enterprise in Alabama. That question, but, isn't before us in this intending."

    265 Ala. at 352, 91 So. 2nd at 216. The proper method for elevating questions inside the kingdom appellate courts pertinent to the underlying fit for an injunction appears

    Page 357 U. S. 467

    to be with the aid of appeal, after a listening to on the merits and very last judgment through the lower country courtroom. Only from the disposition of such an enchantment can evaluate be sought right here.

    For the reasons said, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama need to be reversed, and the case remanded for court cases now not inconsistent with this opinion.

    Reversed.

    * The Certificate of Incorporation of the Association provides that its

    ". . . main objects . . . are voluntarily to promote equality of rights and eliminate caste or race prejudice a number of the citizens of america; to strengthen the interest of coloured citizens; to stable for them independent suffrage, and to boom their opportunities for securing justice inside the courts, training for his or her kids, employment in line with their capacity, and whole equality earlier than the law."

    Oral Argument - January 15, 1958
    Oral Argument - January sixteen, 1958
    Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only discovered within the print version of the US Reports. USLaw.Site case law is provided for general informational functions handiest, and won't reflect cutting-edge legal traits, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the facts contained on this website online or records linked to from this site. Please test legit resources.

    USLaw.Site Annotations is a forum for lawyers to summarize, touch upon, and examine case regulation published on our website online. USLaw.Site makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are correct or mirror the current nation of law, and no annotation is supposed to be, nor ought to or not it's construed as, prison advice. Contacting USLaw.Site or any legal professional through this website online, thru net form, e mail, or in any other case, does no longer create an attorney-consumer dating.