National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson

Brief Fact Summary.

The petitioner refused to comply fully with a court order requiring the production of the Association’s membership lists. Petitioner claims that the order violates rights assured to him and its members under the Constitution.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

If immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is protected by the Constitution.

Facts.

Alabama demanded that petitioner reveal to the State’s Attorney General the names and addresses of all its Alabama members and agents, without regard to their positions or functions in the Association. The Association urges that it is constitutionally entitled to resist official inquiry into its membership lists and that it may assert, on behalf of its members, a right personal to them to be protected from compelled disclosure by the State of their affiliation with the Association as revealed by the membership lists.

Issue.

Can Alabama, consistently with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, compel petitioner to reveal to the State’s Attorney General the names and addresses of all its Alabama members and agents, without regard to their positions or functions in the Association?

Held.

No, the Association does not lack standing to assert constitutional rights pertaining to the members. Immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Discussion.

The production order must be regarded as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner’s members of their right to freedom of association. Petitioner showed that on past occasions, revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility. Under these circumstances, compelled disclosure of petitioner’s Alabama membership is likely to affect adversely the ability of petitioner and its members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs which they have the right to advocate. Moreover, Alabama has fallen short of showing a controlling jurisdiction for the deterrent effect on the free enjoyment of the right to associate which disclosure of membership lists is likely to have.