Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1958 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFreedom of AssociationFourteenth AmendmentCompelled Disclosurefreedom of associationprivacy in associationcompelled disclosuremembership lists

Facts

Alabama brought an equity action to enjoin the NAACP from conducting activities in the State on the ground that it had not qualified to do business there as a foreign corporation. In discovery, the state court ordered production of many records, including the names and addresses of all Alabama members and agents; the NAACP produced substantially everything except its membership lists. The NAACP showed without contradiction that disclosure of member identities had previously exposed members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threats of physical coercion, and other public hostility. The contempt judgment and fine were based on the NAACP's refusal to disclose the rank-and-file membership lists.

Issue

Whether, consistently with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Alabama could compel the NAACP to disclose the names and addresses of its Alabama rank-and-file members and punish refusal by civil contempt. A related threshold issue was whether the NAACP could assert the associational rights of its members.

Rule

Freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. State action that may curtail that freedom, including compelled disclosure of membership in an advocacy organization, is subject to the closest scrutiny; where disclosure is likely to impose a substantial restraint on association, the State must show a compelling or controlling interest sufficiently related to the information sought. An organization may assert the associational rights of its members when requiring members to assert those rights individually would effectively nullify them.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The attorney general of Ohio sues Lakefront Housing Justice, a nonprofit advocacy corporation based in Michigan, alleging it failed to register before operating in Cleveland. In discovery, the state court orders the group to produce bank records, officer identities, and the names and home addresses of every Ohio dues-paying member. The group produces everything except the member list and submits uncontested affidavits showing that previously identified supporters lost jobs, received threats, and were harassed by neighbors.

If Ohio imposes civil contempt sanctions for refusing to disclose the rank-and-file member list, which is the strongest constitutional argument for setting aside the sanction?

Explanation. The majority held that freedom of association is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and compelled disclosure of membership in an advocacy organization is subject to the closest scrutiny when it is likely to deter association. An uncontroverted showing of reprisals, threats, and hostility supports finding a substantial restraint. The State then must show a compelling or controlling justification sufficiently related to the specific information sought. Private hostility does not defeat the claim because the key is the interplay between state compulsion and private reprisals.