Global Freedom of Expression

NAACP v. Alabama

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Assembly
  • Date of Decision
    June 1, 1964
  • Outcome
    Injunction or Order Denied/Vacated
  • Case Number
    377 U.S. 288
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests
  • Tags
    Anonymity, Civil Society Organizations, Discrimination, Racism

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed a contempt order issued against the National Associating for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for failing to disclose its members’ identifying information. The State of Alabama sought to obtain a membership list from the state’s NAACP chapter. When the NAACP refused, a federal court found the NAACP in contempt and fined it $10,000. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the right of association is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.


The State of Alabama sought to obtain a list of members enrolled in the NAACP, their addresses, and their relation to the NAACP, claiming that the organization violated a state statute governing intrastate businesses.  A court granted the state a restraining order that prohibited the NAACP from further engaging in business in Alabama, and issued a subpoena to obtain the NAACP’s records. When the NAACP did not comply with the subpoena requests, a court found the organization to be in contempt of court, and fined the NAACP $10,000. The NAACP moved to dismiss the contempt judgment, which the court denied. The U.S. Supreme Court found the lower court’s ruling incorrect, and remanded for a ruling consistent with its judgment.

On remand, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s contempt judgment, on the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal was based on a “mistaken premise.” The U.S. Supreme Court again reversed and remanded the case.

After the second remand, the NAACP filed suit in U.S. District Court. The organization alleged that the restraining order and  Alabama’s state courts failure to adhere to the U.S. Supreme Court’s directives deprived the NAACP of its constitutional right of the freedom to assemble. The district court dismissed the petition. The court of appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded the case with the order that the district court retain jurisdiction primarily to ensure that the NAACP received a fair hearing in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the court of appeal’s decision, and ordered the U.S. District Court to hold a hearing on the merits to decide whether the NAACP’s constitutional right to association was violated.

Decision Overview

Harlan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association.” US, Fed., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958). This right of association is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and it is immaterial if the beliefs are political, economic, religious, or cultural. The statute compelling disclosure of affiliation with advocacy groups chills an individual’s right to freedom of association. Privacy of an advocacy group’s membership is “indispensable to [the] preservation of freedom of association.” US, Fed., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958).

The Court reiterated that when the government tries to control or prevent association activities, it may not do so when the “means which sweep unnecessarily broad[] and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms,” even if the government purpose is “legitimate and substantial.” US, Fed., NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 (1964).

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The Court’s opinion did not contemplate human rights standards. However, the opinion, in the context of U.S. civil liberties—specifically the right to freedom of association—set a positive precedent in determining that private organizations need not provide the personal and identifying information of its members. The Court’s opinion has been cited in over 70 cases.

The Court’s decision was significant because the NAACP was seeking to protect the information of its members, all of whom were supporters of the U.S. civil rights movement. It is of note that at the time the case was filed, race relations were very tense in the U.S., and supporters of the civil rights movement were frequently subject to mistreatment, prejudice, and at times, violence.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Const. amend. XIV

General Law Notes

No international or regional or other national laws or cases were cited in the opinion.

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is binding precedent on all state and federal courts. It is a seminal U.S. case in freedom of association law.

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback