National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button
"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button" is a significant Supreme Court case that examined the intersection of civil rights, legal representation, and First Amendment protections. In the context of the 1960s civil rights movement, the Virginia legislature enacted a statute aimed at disqualifying attorneys who represented organizations, like the NAACP, unless they had a direct financial interest in the case. This law was seen as a means to undermine efforts by civil rights groups to challenge segregation through the courts.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Virginia by a 6-3 majority, declaring the statute unconstitutional. The ruling underscored the importance of litigation as a form of political expression, especially for marginalized groups seeking justice. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. articulated that such legal actions are vital for organizations to advocate for their causes and to seek redress from the government. Conversely, dissenting opinions highlighted concerns about regulating litigation as a form of conduct rather than pure expression. This case exemplifies the broader legal and social struggles surrounding civil rights and the role of the judiciary in protecting constitutional liberties.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button
Date: January 14, 1963
Citation: 371 U.S. 415
Issue: Freedom of association
Significance: In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected the right of an organization to use the courts in promoting its organizational mission.
The Virginia legislature enacted a “barratry” statute that threatened to disbar attorneys who represented an organization sponsoring a judicial proceeding without having a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome. The purpose of the statute was to prevent the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other civil rights organizations from sponsoring antisegregation litigation. By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.’s opinion for the Court emphasized that litigation is a protected form of political expression and is often the most effective means for an association to promote its goals as well as the only practical way for a minority to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In addition, a state may not ignore constitutional rights under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct. In dissent, Justice John M. Harlan II argued that litigation was primarily conduct rather than First Amendment expression and therefore was subject to reasonable regulations.
