Lexplug logoLexplug

Bates v. Little Rock

Supreme Court of United States
361 U.S. 516 (1960)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Compelled disclosure of an organization's membership list constitutes a significant encroachment on the members' freedom of association, and therefore, a municipality cannot require such disclosure without demonstrating a compelling, subordinating interest that is substantially related to the information sought.


Facts:

  • The cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas, enacted ordinances authorizing them to levy license taxes on various businesses, professions, and occupations.
  • In 1957, both cities amended their ordinances to require any organization, upon request, to provide detailed information, including financial statements and a list of members and contributors.
  • These ordinances specified that all information furnished would be made public.
  • Daisy Bates and Birdie Williams were custodians of records for the local NAACP branches in Little Rock and North Little Rock, respectively.
  • The NAACP branches provided all requested information except for their membership lists.
  • The petitioners refused to disclose the names of members and contributors, stating that public disclosure would likely lead to harassment, economic reprisals, and bodily harm.
  • Evidence showed that individuals publicly identified as NAACP members had been subjected to threats and harassment, and that fear of disclosure discouraged membership.

Procedural Posture:

  • Daisy Bates and Birdie Williams were tried and convicted in their respective municipal courts for violating city ordinances by refusing to disclose NAACP membership lists.
  • The petitioners appealed their convictions.
  • The Supreme Court of Arkansas consolidated the cases and affirmed the convictions of the trial courts, finding the ordinances constitutional.
  • The petitioners, Bates and Williams, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a municipal ordinance that compels an organization to disclose its membership list, under threat of penalty, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by infringing on the members' freedom of association, when the city's justification is tied to its power to levy occupational taxes?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart

Yes. Compelling the disclosure of membership lists significantly interferes with the freedom of association protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that freedom of association and privacy in one's associations are fundamental rights, especially for groups with dissident beliefs. When a state action encroaches upon such a fundamental liberty, the state must show a compelling and subordinating interest to justify it. Here, the cities claimed the information was necessary for their power to levy occupational license taxes. However, the Court found no relevant correlation between this taxing power and the demand for membership lists, as the NAACP's activities did not fall under any taxable occupation, and the cities had never asserted a tax claim against them. Therefore, the cities failed to demonstrate a controlling justification for the infringement on associational freedom.


Concurring - Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas

Yes. The ordinances as applied violate the freedoms of speech and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. First Amendment rights are beyond abridgment, whether through direct restraint or indirect suppression via government-compelled exposure and harassment. Freedom of association is an essential component of the freedom of assembly and is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment, regardless of the members' race, politics, or religion.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the precedent set in N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, solidifying the principle that the freedom of association includes a crucial right to privacy in one's affiliations. It establishes that a government's general regulatory or taxing power is not, by itself, a sufficient justification for infringing upon this fundamental right. The ruling requires a tight 'nexus' between the government's stated interest and the specific information it seeks to compel, setting a high bar for government intrusions into the internal affairs of advocacy groups. This case provides a strong defense for politically unpopular or minority groups against government attempts to suppress them through compelled disclosure and public exposure.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Bates v. Little Rock (1960) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Bates v. Little Rock