In a landmark 1958 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) against the state of Alabama, upholding the organization’s right to keep its membership lists private. This ruling was a significant milestone in the civil rights movement, and its implications continue to be felt today.
The case, NAACP v. Alabama, was sparked by the state’s attempt to obtain the names and addresses of the organization’s members. Alabama argued that the NAACP was causing “irreparable harm” to the state by advocating for the end of segregation on public buses. The state sought to bar the NAACP from operating in Alabama or, failing that, to require the organization to provide the state with the names and addresses of its members.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the NAACP had the right to keep its membership lists private, citing the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association. The court ruled that compelled disclosure of the NAACP’s membership would likely have a chilling effect on the organization’s ability to advocate for its beliefs.
Fast forward to 2010, when California’s Attorney General’s Office, led by Kamala Harris, began cracking down on nonprofit organizations that refused to provide lists of their major donors. Harris argued that the state had the right to demand this information, despite the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in NAACP v. Alabama.
Two nonprofit groups, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center, challenged Harris’s demands in court. Despite initial victories in the lower courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in favor of California. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision in 2021, citing the NAACP v. Alabama ruling and emphasizing the importance of protecting the privacy of nonprofit donors.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a significant blow to Harris’s efforts to regulate nonprofit organizations. It also highlighted the tension between Harris’s actions as Attorney General and her professed commitment to civil rights.
As a presidential candidate, Harris has been criticized for her views on free speech, the right to bear arms, and due process.
Her actions as Attorney General have raised questions about her commitment to protecting the rights of nonprofit organizations and their donors.
The NAACP v. Alabama decision remains a landmark ruling in the protection of civil rights and the importance of protecting the privacy of nonprofit donors. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the right to associate freely and advocate for one’s beliefs is a fundamental aspect of American democracy.
