National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Harrison

Citation116 S.E.2d 55,202 Va. 142
Decision Date02 September 1960
Docket Number5097,Nos. 5096,s. 5096
PartiesNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, ETC. v. A. S. HARRISON, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, ET. AL. N.A.A.C.P. LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. v. A. S. HARRISON, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. Record
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

Robert L. Carter (Oliver W. Hill, on brief), for appellant, NAACP.

Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Thurgood Marshall, on brief), for appellant, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.

David J. Mays (John W. Knowles, Assistant Attorney General; Henry T. Wickham, on brief), for appellees, A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General, et al.

I'ANSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, hereinafter referred to as the NAACP, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Fund, appellants herein, filed their separate bills of complaint in the court below against Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the attorneys for the Commonwealth of the cities of Richmond, Newport News and Norfolk, and the counties of Arlington and Prince Edward, Virginia, appellees herein, to secure a declaratory judgment construing chapters 33 and 36, Acts of Assembly, Ex. Sess., 1956, codified as §§ 54-74, 54-78, 54-79, Code of 1950, as amended, 1958 Replacement Volume, and §§ 18-349.31 to 18-349.37, INCLUSIVE, CODE OF 19501, as amended, 1958 Cum. Supp., as they may affect the appellants, their officers, members, affiliates of NAACP, contributors, voluntary workers, attorneys retained or employed by them or to whom they may contribute monies and expenses, and litigants receiving assistance in cases involving racial discrimination, because of the activities of the NAACP and the Fund in the past or the continuation of like activities in the future.

The NAACP, in addition to seeking a construction of the aforementioned statutes, alleged that the statutes are unconstitutional and void because their enforcement would deny to it, its affiliates, officers, members, contributors, voluntary workers, attorneys retained or employed by it, and litigants whom it may aid, due process of law and equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The two suits were heard and considered together in the court below, by consent of all parties, on the appellants' bills; their exhibits, which included a transcript of the evidence, exhibits, the majority and dissenting opinions of the three-judge federal court, and the judgment entered in the case of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patty, 159 F. Supp. 503 (judgment vacated and remanded sub nom. Harrison, et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 360 U. S. 167, 79 S. Ct. 1025, 3 L. ed. 2d 1152); the answers and exhibits of the appellees; and ore tenus testimony on behalf of the appellees and the NAACP, except one deposition taken on behalf of the NAACP. No testimony was taken on behalf of the Fund.

The court below held, so far as need here be stated, (1) that chapters 33 and 36 do not violate the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly, due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that the evidence shows that the appellants, their officers, affiliates, members, voluntary workers and attorneys are engaged in the improper solicitation of legal business and employment in violation of chapter 33 and the canons of legal ethics; (3) that attorneys who accept employment by appellants to represent litigants in cases solicited by the appellants, and in which they pay all costs and attorneys' fees, are violating chapter 33 and the canons of legal ethics; and (4) that the appellants and those associated with them advise persons of their legal rights in matters in which the appellants have no direct interest; and whose professional advice has not been sought in accordance with the Virginia canons of legal ethics, and as an inducement for such persons to assert their legal rights through the commencement of or further prosecution of legal proceedings against the Commonwealth of Virginia, any department, agency or political subdivision thereof, or any person acting as an employee for either or both or any of the foregoing, the appellants furnish attorneys employed by them and pay all court costs incident thereto, and that these activities violate either chapter 33 or 36, or both.

The court's decree enumerated certain detailed activities of the appellants which do not violate chapters 33 and 36, and since they are not challenged by any of the parties hereto, they need not be stated herein.

From the decree of the chancellor we granted an appeal and supersedeas in each cause. They will be considered together by us, as they were in the court below, except the statutes involved will be considered separately.

The questions presented on these appeals are:

(1) Do the activities of the appellants, or either of them, amount to solicitation of business, prohibited by chapter 33?

(2) Do the activities of the appellants, or either of them, amount to an inducement to others to commence or further prosecute law-suits against the Commonwealth, its officers, agencies, or political subdivisions, as prohibited by chapter 36?

(3) Do the provisions of either chapters 33 or 36 violate the Virginia Bill of Rights (Constitution § 12) and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

The evidence shows that the NAACP and the Fund are non-profit membership corporations organized under the laws of the State of New York with authority to operate in this Commonwealth as foreign corporations. The NAACP and the Fund functioned as one corporation with the same officers, directors and members from 1911 until 1948, when, for tax purposes and other reasons, the Fund was organized as a separate corporation.

The principal purpose of the NAACP is to eliminate all forms of racial segregation. It has been described by its counsel as a political organization for those who oppose racial discrimination.

Affiliated with the NAACP are approximately one thousand unincorporated branches operating in forty-five states and the District of Columbia. The branches are chartered by the NAACP, and, for failure of the branch officers to follow strictly the policies and directives of the national body, their charters may be revoked or their officers removed. The branches are generally grouped together in each state into an unincorporated association. In Virginia the association is known as the Virginia State Conference of NAACP Branches.

The State Conference holds annual conventions which are attended by delegates from the local branches. It takes the lead in NAACP's activities in this State under the administration of a full-time salaried executive secretary who is responsible to a board of directors. The executive secretary coordinates the activities of the branches in accordance with the policies and objectives of the Conference and the NAACP, supervises local membership and fund raising campaigns, distributes educational material dealing with racial matters, and performs many other duties.

The executive secretary, members of the legal staff, and other representatives of the State Conference make speeches before local branches and other groups for the purpose of advising those present that all segregation laws are unconstitutional and void, and urging them to challenge laws to eliminate segregation through the institution of legal proceedings which the State Conference, the NAACP and the Fund sponsor at no cost to the litigants.

The aid given litigants to initiate suits is in the form of furnishing lawyers who are members of the legal committee of the Conference, the NAACP, and regional counsel of the Fund, the payment of court costs and other expenses of litigation.

The Conference receives financial support to defray the cost of litigation it sponsors and other expenses from the local branches, the national bodies, and contributions.

Letters and directives addressed to officers of local branches and signed by the executive secretary of the Conference, filed as exhibits by the appellees, show the plans, methods and procedures used by the NAACP to sponsor litigation in school cases.

A letter dated May 26, 1954, reads in part as follows:

'It is of utmost importance that your branch retain the leadership in all actions engaged in in your community.'

In a letter dated June 16, 1954, it is said:

'The Conference is proceeding with the development of its plan and will advise you thereof as soon as this work is completed.'

A confidential directive of June 30, 1955, from the president and executive secretary to local branches relative to the handling of petitions for presentation to local school boards stated in part as follows:

'Petitions will be placed only in the hands of highly trusted and responsible persons to secure signatures of parents or guardians only.

'The signing of the petition by a parent or guardian may well be only the first step to an extended court fight. Therefore, discretion and care should be exercised to secure petitioners who will--if need be--go all the way. * * *

'The Education Committee chairman will forward completed petitions to the Executive Secretary of the State Conference. * * *

'Following the above procedure, it becomes apparent that the faster your branches act the sooner will your school board be petitioned to desegregate your schools. Every act of our branch and the State Conference officials from this point on should be considered as an emergency action, and must take precedence over routine affairs--personal or otherwise.'

Another directive contained in part these instructions:

'Organize the parents in the community so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • In re Edna Smith Primus, Appellant
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 30 Mayo 1978
    ...Conference of NAACP Branches (Conference), constituted "solicitation of legal business" in violation of state law. NAACP v. Harrison, 202 Va. 142, 116 S.E.2d 55 (1960). Although the NAACP representatives and staff attorneys had "a right to peaceably assemble with the members of the branches......
  • Jordan v. Hutcheson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 17 Septiembre 1963
    ...1152 (1959); N.A.A.C.P. v. Harrison, Chancery Causes No. B-2879 and No. B-2880, Aug. 31, 1962; N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. v. Harrison, 202 Va. 142, 116 S.E.2d 55 (1960); N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405. See also N.A.A.C.P. v. Committee ......
  • Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 8 Mayo 1974
    ...statutory provisions relating to maintenance and champerty were declared unconstitutional in National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Harrison, 202 Va. 142, 116 S.E.2d 55 (1960), the court made it clear that maintenance and champerty continue to be illegal under Code of Virgi......
  • National Association For Advancement of Colored People v. Button, 5
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1963
    ...purpose 'was to strengthen the existing statutes to further control the evils of solicitation of legal business * * *.' 202 Va., at 154, 116 S.E.2d, at 65. The court held that the activities of NAACP, the Virginia Conference, the Defense Fund, and the lawyers furnished by them, fell within,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT