357 U.S. 449, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1488 (1958)
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a nonprofit membership corporation organized under the laws of New York.1 Its first Alabama affiliates were chartered in 1918, and in 1951 the Association opened a regional office in Alabama employing two supervisory persons and one clerical worker.2 The Association has never complied with Alabama's foreign corporation qualification statute.3
In 1956 the Attorney General of Alabama brought an equity suit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County to enjoin the Association from further activities within the state and to oust it from Alabama.4 The bill alleged that the Association had opened a regional office, organized affiliates, recruited members, solicited contributions, given financial support and legal assistance to Negro students seeking admission to the state university, and supported a Negro boycott of Montgomery bus lines.5 On the day the complaint was filed the Circuit Court issued an ex parte order restraining the Association pendente lite from engaging in further activities within the state and from taking steps to qualify to do business.6
The State moved for production of a large number of records including bank statements, leases, deeds, and records containing the names and addresses of all Alabama members and agents.7 Over the Association's objections the Circuit Court ordered production of a substantial part of the requested records including the membership lists and postponed the hearing on the restraining order.8 The Association answered the bill, admitted its Alabama activities substantially as alleged, and offered to qualify if the bar from qualification were lifted, but it did not produce the membership lists.9
For its failure to comply the Association was adjudged in civil contempt and fined $10,000, with the fine subject to increase to $100,000 if compliance was not forthcoming within five days.10 After the five-day period the Association produced substantially all requested data except the membership lists, and the Circuit Court increased the fine to $100,000.11 The Alabama Supreme Court twice dismissed petitions for certiorari to review the final contempt judgment, the first time for insufficiency of the petition's allegations and the second time on procedural grounds.12
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the constitutional questions presented.13
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the contempt judgment when the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari on asserted state procedural grounds?14
A state procedural ground for denying review does not defeat Supreme Court jurisdiction if that ground lacks fair or substantial support in prior state decisions, as the Court must ensure constitutional claims receive appropriate consideration.15
Yes. The Alabama Supreme Court's limitation of certiorari review to jurisdictional or facial invalidity questions contradicted its earlier holdings in cases such as Ex parte Dickens and Ex parte Morris.16 In those cases, certiorari was used to examine constitutional challenges to contempt orders involving production of membership lists.17 The Association reasonably relied on those precedents when it sought certiorari rather than mandamus.18 The novel procedural barrier cannot bar federal review of the constitutional claims.19
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the federal constitutional questions presented by the contempt judgment.20
Whether the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People may assert on behalf of its members a right to resist compelled disclosure of membership lists?21
An organization may assert the constitutional rights of its members when those rights cannot be effectively vindicated by the members themselves and when the organization serves as the medium through which members express their collective views.22
Yes. Requiring individual rank-and-file members to assert the right to nondisclosure would nullify the right at the moment of assertion because of the risk of exposure.23 The Association functions as the practical embodiment of its members' efforts to advance shared beliefs, and compelled production would likely diminish the Association's support and membership.24
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has standing to assert the First Amendment rights of its members regarding the membership lists.25
Whether Alabama may constitutionally compel the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to produce its membership lists under the circumstances of this case?26
No. Revelation of membership identities has previously exposed Association members to economic reprisals, loss of employment, and threats of physical coercion, creating a substantial likelihood that disclosure would cause members to withdraw and deter others from joining.29 Alabama's asserted interest in enforcing its foreign corporation qualification statute does not justify the order because the Association supplied extensive other records, admitted its activities, offered to qualify, and the membership lists bear no substantial relation to determining whether the Association conducted intrastate business.30
Alabama may not constitutionally compel production of the membership lists, and the contempt judgment and fine must be set aside.31