NAACP v. Button facts for kids

Quick facts for kids NAACP v. Button
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 8, 1961 Reargued October 9, 1962 Decided January 14, 1963
Full case name	National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, et al.
Citations	371 U.S. 415 (more) 83 S. Ct. 328; 9 L. Ed. 2d 405; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2398
Prior history	NAACP v. Harrison, 202 Va. 142; 116 S.E.2d 55 (1960); cert. granted, 365 U.S. 842 (1961).
Holding
Virginia laws on barratry, champerty, and maintenance violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Goldberg
Concurrence	Douglas
Concur/dissent	White
Dissent	Harlan, joined by Clark, Stewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. I; XIV

NAACP v. Button, decided in 1963, was an important case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that certain laws in Virginia were against the U.S. Constitution. These laws were part of Virginia's plan to stop school desegregation, known as the Stanley Plan and massive resistance. The Supreme Court said these laws went against the First Amendment (about free speech and assembly) and the Fourteenth Amendment (about equal protection).

The laws that were struck down tried to change the meaning of old legal terms like barratry, champerty, and maintenance. These terms usually describe wrong actions by lawyers or people involved in lawsuits. Virginia's new laws were specifically aimed at stopping the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from helping people fight for their civil rights in court.

Fighting Segregation: The Background of the Case

After the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954 and 1955), schools across the U.S. were told to end segregation. This meant Black and white students should go to school together. However, some states, like Virginia, strongly resisted this change. This resistance was called "Massive Resistance."

The NAACP was a key group fighting for civil rights. They filed many lawsuits to end segregation in schools. For example, the case of Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County was one of the first cases about school segregation.

Virginia's New Laws to Stop the NAACP

In 1956, Virginia passed many new laws to keep schools segregated. These laws were known as the "Stanley Plan." Some laws offered money for students to attend private schools that were still segregated. Other laws targeted the NAACP directly.

Five of these new laws tried to control how lawyers worked. They expanded the definitions of old legal wrongdoings:

• Barratry: This meant encouraging people to sue when they might not have otherwise.
• Champerty: This was when someone (not the lawyer or client) paid for a lawsuit in exchange for a share of any money won.
• Maintenance: This meant a third party helping a lawsuit continue, even if the people involved might have wanted to stop or settle.

Virginia's leaders believed the NAACP was "stirring up" lawsuits to force integration. By 1956, the NAACP had already filed many requests with local school boards to desegregate.

The new laws also made groups that worked on racial issues share their financial reports and membership lists every year. Virginia even created special committees in its legislature to investigate the NAACP. Other Southern states also tried similar tactics to stop civil rights groups, but the Supreme Court often ruled against them.

The NAACP Takes Virginia to Court

The NAACP quickly challenged Virginia's new laws in federal court. They argued that these laws violated their members' rights to freedom of speech and assembly under the First Amendment.

The case went through several courts. At first, a federal court said three of the laws were unconstitutional. But the newly elected Attorney General of Virginia, Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., appealed this decision.

In 1959, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to Virginia's state courts. The Supreme Court said that the state courts should first explain what the laws meant before a federal court decided if they were constitutional.

So, the NAACP continued its fight in Virginia's state courts. They argued that the laws were unconstitutional. During the trial, the NAACP showed how the new laws had hurt their efforts. For example, their membership numbers dropped because people were afraid to be on the required lists.

Even though the NAACP won some small victories in other areas, the Richmond court refused to say the new laws against lawyers were unconstitutional. The NAACP then appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which upheld one of the laws.

Finally, the NAACP appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court again. The case was argued twice, in 1961 and 1962, because some justices on the Court had changed.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court announced its decision on January 14, 1963.

The Majority Opinion

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote the main opinion for the majority of the Court. He was joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Hugo Black and Arthur Goldberg. Justice William O. Douglas also agreed with the decision and wrote his own opinion.

First, Justice Brennan explained that the Supreme Court had the power to review the Virginia Supreme Court's decision, even though a lower federal court had kept some control over the case.

Then, Justice Brennan addressed the main issue: the Constitution. Virginia had argued that the Constitution didn't protect the free speech rights of organizations like the NAACP as much as it protected individuals. But Justice Brennan disagreed. He said that organizations have rights similar to individuals. He also said that organizations can speak up for their members' rights.

Brennan explained that "free speech" isn't just about talking. It also includes taking legal action to protect rights. He said that using the court system is a protected form of political expression. It's also a way to make sure everyone gets "equal protection of the laws." The Court said that the NAACP's activities, like collecting dues and hiring lawyers, were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Virginia laws made it a wrongdoing to simply tell someone their rights had been violated and suggest they talk to a lawyer. Justice Brennan said this stopped lawyers and individuals from using their First Amendment rights. It also made it hard for people to use their Fourteenth Amendment rights. He said this created a "grave danger of smothering all discussion" about protecting the rights of minority groups.

Virginia argued that it was just trying to keep high standards for lawyers. But Brennan said this wasn't a good enough reason to limit free speech. He explained that a state's interest in preventing bad behavior by lawyers doesn't outweigh the importance of free speech. While states can regulate lawyers, the NAACP's actions were about enforcing constitutional rights, which cannot be seen as "malicious" or wrong. Virginia also couldn't show any real harm caused by the NAACP's activities.

Because of these reasons, the Supreme Court overturned the Virginia Supreme Court's decision.

Justice Douglas's Agreement

Justice Douglas agreed with the Court's ruling. He pointed out that the history of the Virginia laws showed they were created to discriminate against the NAACP. He said the laws were designed to get around the Supreme Court's earlier decisions.

Justice White's Partial Agreement and Disagreement

Justice Byron White agreed with the outcome of the case but disagreed with some of the reasoning. He felt that the Virginia laws did violate free speech rights. He thought a more specific law might be acceptable, but the majority's decision seemed to prevent that.

Justice Harlan's Disagreement

Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote the dissenting opinion, meaning he disagreed with the majority. Justices Tom C. Clark and Potter Stewart joined him.

Justice Harlan argued that the NAACP's lawyers were like staff members, and the NAACP controlled their actions. He felt that the NAACP actively looked for specific types of clients to push its goals, which was different from a "normal" lawyer-client relationship.

Harlan believed that the NAACP had violated not only the new laws but also older ones. He thought that using the court system didn't have the same strong constitutional protection as pure speech. He also felt that the Virginia laws only slightly affected free speech. He saw the NAACP's actions as "conduct," which doesn't have the same strong protection as speech. He also disagreed that the NAACP's activities were free from financial gain, saying it wasn't a typical lawyer-client relationship.

Harlan also disagreed that the Virginia laws were unclear or too broad. He believed the laws should have been upheld.

What Happened Next

The NAACP v. Button decision was very important. It approved the NAACP's strategy of using "test cases" (choosing specific lawsuits to challenge unfair laws). This decision helped lead to the growth of "public interest law firms." These are law firms that work on cases that benefit the public, not just individual clients. For example, they might work on cases about housing rights or education.

However, this also raised some questions about whether lawyers might put their own beliefs ahead of what's best for their clients. The American Bar Association later created rules to help lawyers understand when offering free legal help is okay and when it might be a problem.