Analysis Of Naacp V. Alabama Case And Its Results

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, “It is a fair summary of constitutional history that the landmarks of our liberties have often been forged in cases involving not very nice people' (1995). Civil liberties are assurances and liberties that moderate administrations pledge not to abridge, either by lawmaking or legal clarification, without due process. These liberties are assured to us by the constitution to shelter us from oppression. There are numerous cases that have affected these civil liberties throughout our country’s history. One notable case that comes to my mind was NAACP v. Alabama in 1958. According to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s website, they are a municipal justice’s connection in the United States, that formed in 1909 as a bi-racial effort to spread justice for African Americans (NAACP). Throughout this investigation, the NAACP was one of the limited, if not only, functioning public rights association, to live in the South. Therefore, this situation permitted the individual functioning civil rights association to survive in America, with the lowest level of defense from extortion.

During this time in history, Alabama could probe organizations like NAACP that were not formally disclosed with the state. The Attorney General of Alabama, John Patterson, wanted to stop NAACP from operating in the state because the state requires out of state corporations to register various records, including the organizations member lists. NAACP refused to release their member lists. The underlying issue with this, is that this group has a right to privacy. Can the state really demand an organization to disclose names and addresses of its supporters as an agent in the public, deprived of a regard to their locations or occupations? No, they cannot. This could put the organization at risk for potential reprisal attacks and a breach in their confidentiality.

The State of Alabama continued to try and acquire an account of the supporters enrolled in the NAACP, their addresses, and their connection to the NAACP, asserting that the group infringed a state law governing intrastate industries. A court permitted the state a restraining order that banned the NAACP from additional appealing in the industry in Alabama and distributed a subpoena to acquire the organizations files. When they did not obey the subpoena demands, a court put the organization in contempt of court and charged the NAACP ten thousand dollars (2014). The NAACP then tried to discharge the contempt ruling, which the court rejected. But the United States Supreme Court uncovered the minor court’s verdict unfitting and remanded for a decision uniform with its findings.

So, in the NAACP v. Alabama case, the Supreme Court collectively ruled that the First Amendment protected the uninhibited association privileges of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and its rank-and-file supporters (Franklin). The first amendment freedom of association cannot be disregarded upon by countries, freedom of association is an exercise of independence which cannot be contradicted by any form of government because peaceful companies have a right to confidentiality and the State of Alabama did not have a persuasive concern to validate this law. The court’s evaluation met the intentions of the NAACP. This clearly represents why civil liberties defend citizens from the influence of our administration. They are imbedded in the Bill of Rights, which restricts the controls of the federal government. The government cannot take away the liberties defined in the Bill of Rights, and any act that intrudes on these rights is unlawful.

Presently, NAACP v. Alabama categorizes amongst the more significant Supreme Court resolutions of our time. Additionally, to its proximate influence of moving desegregation exertions in the South, the case acknowledged the fundamental responsibility that confidentiality and privacy work in enabling free speech and freedom of association. The examination has been quoted countless times in academic reports. Anytime our administration pursues to overrun the space of an assembly of citizens who have advanced jointly to assist a specific reason, the administration has an obligation to demonstrate a convincing concern in acquiring the evidence. From the time when NAACP v. Alabama came to a verdict, the Supreme Court has established an opulent group of case law in the associated expanse of campaign-finance law, although separating the demand of contributor admission in the ballot-issue background uncertain. Understanding what the Court has — and has not — completed in the previous decades is crucial to forecasting what occurs next.

References

• Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. (1995, July 4). Retrieved February 19, 2020, from https://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp
• Franklin, S. (n.d.). NAACP v. Alabama. Retrieved February 19, 2020, from zhttps://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/68/naacp-v-alabama
• NAACP Home. (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2020, from https://www.naacp.org/
• NAACP v. Alabama. (2014, September 23). Retrieved February 19, 2019, from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/naacp-v-alabama-2/