## Facts

- Alabama’s Attorney General brought an equity action seeking to enjoin the NAACP from operating in Alabama and to oust it from the state, citing failure to comply with a foreign-corporation qualification statute and alleged harm to residents’ rights.
- A state trial court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order barring the NAACP from conducting activities in Alabama and from taking steps to qualify to do business there.
- On the State’s motion, the trial court ordered the NAACP to produce organizational records, including its membership lists containing the names and addresses of Alabama members and agents.
- The NAACP produced most requested records but refused to disclose member and agent identities.
- The trial court held the NAACP in civil contempt and imposed a $100,000 fine, reducible upon compliance.
- The Alabama Supreme Court denied relief from the contempt judgment.
- The NAACP sought U.S. Supreme Court review, arguing the compelled disclosure violated the Fourteenth Amendment protection of associational rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the Alabama Supreme Court’s disposition rested on an adequate and independent state ground that barred U.S. Supreme Court review.
2. Whether Alabama could, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, compel disclosure of the names and addresses of all Alabama NAACP members and agents without regard to their roles.
3. Whether the State showed a sufficiently weighty justification for a disclosure order likely to deter association through fear of reprisals.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction because the state court decision did not rest on an adequate, independent state ground.
- The Court reversed, holding that compelled disclosure of the NAACP’s Alabama membership lists violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court concluded the disclosure requirement would likely deter membership and associational activity, given evidence of past reprisals against disclosed members.
- The State failed to demonstrate a controlling justification or a substantial relationship between disclosure of rank-and-file membership identities and any asserted regulatory interest.
- The contempt judgment and fine based on refusal to produce the membership lists could not stand; the case was remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is protected as part of the liberty secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Compelled disclosure of affiliation with advocacy groups can burden associational freedom by chilling participation and exposing members to retaliation.
- An organization may assert the constitutional rights of its members when a disclosure order directed at the organization would effectively impair those rights.
- When state action materially burdens associational freedom, the State must show a controlling justification and a substantial relation between the disclosure sought and a legitimate governmental interest.
- The Constitution does not create categorical immunity from lawful investigation, but compelled membership disclosure requires a strong, specific justification in context.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Alabama’s compelled disclosure of the NAACP’s membership lists, enforced through civil contempt and a substantial fine, violated constitutionally protected associational freedom because the State did not justify the deterrent effects on membership and advocacy.


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