Bates v. City of Little Rock
Citation | 80 S.Ct. 412,4 L.Ed.2d 480,361 U.S. 516 |
Decision Date | 23 February 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 41,41 |
Parties | Daisy BATES et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK et al |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Robert L. Carter, for petitioners.
Mr. Joseph C. Kemp, Little Rock, Ark., for respondent, City of Little rock.
No appearance for respondent, City of North Little Rock.
Each of the petitioners has been convicted of violating an identical ordinance of an Arkansas municipality by refusing a demand to furnish city officials with a list of the names of the members of a local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The question for decision is whether these convictions can stand under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Municipalities in Arkansas are authorized by the State to levy a license tax on any person, firm, individual, or corporation engaging in any 'trade, business, profession, vocation or calling' within their corporate limits.1 Pursuant to this authority, the City of Little Rock and the City of North Little Rock have for some years imposed annual license taxes on a broad variety of businesses, occupations, and professions.2 Charitable organizations which engage in the activities affected are relieved from paying the taxes.
In 1957 the two cities added identical amendments to their occupation license tax ordinances. These amendments require that any organization operating within the municipality in question must supply to the City Clerk upon request and within a specified time, (1) the official name of the organization; (2) its headquarters or regular meeting place; (3) the names of the officers, agents, servants, employees, or representatives, and their salaries; (4) the purpose of the organization; (5) a statement as to dues, assessments, and contributions paid, by whom and when paid, together with a statement reflecting the disposition of the funds and the total net income; (6) an affidavit stating whether the organization is subordinate to a parent organization, and if so, the latter's name. The ordinances expressly provide that all information furnished shall be public and subject to the inspection of any interested party at all reasonable business hours.3
Petitioner Bates was the custodian of the records of the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Little Rock, and petitioner Williams was the custodian of the records of the North Little Rock branch. These local organizations supplied the two municipalities with all the information required by the ordinances, except that demanded under § 2E of each ordinance which would have required disclosure of the names of the organizations' members and contributors. Instead of furnishing the detailed breakdown required by this section of the North Little Rock ordinance, the petitioner Williams wrote to the City Clerk as follows:
'E. The financial statement is as follows:
January 1, 1957 to December 4, 1957.
Total receipts from membership and
contributors $252.00.
Total expenditures......... $183.60
(to National Office)
Secretarial help.............. 5.00
Stationery, stamps, etc....... 3.00
---------
Total..................... $191.60
On Hand...................... 60.40
* * *'
A substantially identical written statement was submitted on behalf of the Little Rock branch of the Association to the Clerk of that city.
After refusing upon further demand to submit the names of the members of her organization,4 each petitioner was tried, convicted, and fined for a violation of the ordinance of her respective municipality. At the Bates trial evidence was offered to show that many former members of the local organization had declined to renew their membership because of the existence of the ordinance in question.5 Similar evidence was received in the Williams trial,6 as well as evidence that those who had been publicly identified in the community as members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had been subjected to harassment and threats of bodily harm. 7
On appeal the cases were consolidated in the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and, with two justices dissenting, the convictions were upheld. 229 Ark. 819, 319 S.W.2d 37, 43 [ ]. The court concluded that compulsory disclosure of the membership lists under the circumstances was 'not an unconstitutional invasion of the freedoms guaranteed * * *' but 'a mere incident to a permissible legal result.'8 Because of the significant constitutional question involved, we granted certiorari. 359 U.S. 988, 79 S.Ct. 1118, 3 L.Ed.2d 977.
Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government based upon the consent of an informed citizenry—a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the preservation of liberty. U.S.Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, 81 L.Ed. 278; N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1170, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488.
Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660; Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292; American Communications Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402, 70 S.Ct. 674, 685, 94 L.Ed. 925; N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, supra; Smith v. People of State of California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205. , N.A.A.C.P. v State of Alabama, 357 U.S. at page 462, 78 S.Ct. at page 1171.
On this record it sufficiently appears that compulsory disclosure of the membership lists of the local branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would work a significant interference with the freedom of association of their members.9 There was substantial uncontroverted evidence that public identification of persons in the community as members of the organizations had been followed by harassment and threats of bodily harm. There was also evidence that fear of community hostility and economic reprisals that would follow public disclosure of the membership lists had discouraged new members from joining the organizations and induced former members to withdraw. This repressive effect, while in part the result of private attitudes and presures, was brought to bear only after the exercise of governmental power had threatened to force disclosure of the members' names. N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. at page 463, 78 S.Ct. at page 1172. Thus, the threat of substantial government encroachment upon important and traditional aspects of individual freedom is neither speculative nor remote.
Decision in this case must finally turn, therefore, on whether the cities as instrumentalities of the State have demonstrated so cogent an interest in obtaining and making public the membership lists of these organizations as to justify the substantial abridgment of associational freedom which such disclosures will effect. Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling. N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488. See also Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643; Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155; Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574, 61 S.Ct. 762, 765, 85 L.Ed. 1049; Murdock v. Commonwealth of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Chapman
...distribute information and thereby freedom of expression." (362 U.S. at p. 64, 80 S.Ct. at p. 538; see also Bates v. Little Rock (1960) 361 U.S. 516, 80 S.Ct. 412, 4 L.Ed.2d 480; N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama (1958) 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488; Schuster v. Municipal Court (1980) 109......
-
Crownover v. Musick
...10 L.Ed.2d 965; NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958) 357 U.S. 449, 464, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488; Bates v. Little Rock (1960) 361 U.S. 516, 524, 80 S.Ct. 412, 4 L.Ed.2d 480; Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 14 See text accompanying footnote 13, An......
-
Britt v. Superior Court
...heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference." (Bates v. Little Rock (1960) 361 U.S. 516, 523, 80 S.Ct. 412, 416, 4 L.Ed.2d 480; see, e. g., White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 767, 120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222.) Indeed, numerous cases......
-
Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court
...of a free society.' Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 486 (, 81 S.Ct. 247, 251, 5 L.Ed.2d 231) (1960). See, e. g., Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 522-523 (, 80 S.Ct. 412, 416, 4 L.Ed.2d 480) (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, supra, (357 U.S. 449) at 460-461, (78 S.Ct. 1163, at 1170-1171, 2 L.Ed......
-
No Place To Hide: First Amendment Protection For Location Privacy
...3 Id. at 463. 4 Id. at 460-61. 5 372 U.S. 539 (1963). 6 Id. at 544 (citing NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) and Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 7 Id. at 558. 8 Id. 9 364 U.S. 479 (1960). 10 Id. at 485-486. 11 459 U.S. 87 (1982). 12 Id. at 420 (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64......
-
The pariah principle.
...384 U.S. 118, 120 n.2 (1966) (Douglas, J., dissenting); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 451 n.(*) (1958); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 526 (1960). (60.) 116 S. Ct. at 1629. (61.) Id. (62.) Id. at 1628. (63.) See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 689-90 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring......
-
Community, Society, and Individualism in Constitutional Law
...(2000) (applying right to selective association in favor of a large national organization). 528. See, e.g. , Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 527 (1960) (striking down requirement that local NAACP chapters disclose membership lists). 529. See DANIEL J. SOLOVE, THE FUTURE OF REPUT......
-
How Ohio v. Talty provided for future bans on procreation and the consequences that action brings: Ohio v. Talty: hiding in the shadow of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
...State v. Trammell, 751 N.E.2d 283, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Carey, 431 U.S. 678 at 685). (64) See Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (65) See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). Here, the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute denying a felon, who served his co......
-
Censorship by proxy: the First Amendment, Internet intermediaries, and the problem of the weakest link.
...Tribe & Patrick O. Gudridge, The Anti-Emergency Constitution, 113 YALE L.J. 1801, 1851-65 (2004). (100) Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 523 (101) Vincent Blasi, The Pathological Perspective and the First Amendment, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 449, 482 (1985) ("[T]he chilling effect do......