Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 11

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

that  supported  racial  integration  in  higher  education  and
public  transportation.    Id.,  at  452.  In  response,  NAACP
members were threatened with economic reprisals and vio-
lence.  Id., at 462.  As part of an effort to oust the organiza-
tion from the State, the Alabama Attorney General sought 
the group’s membership lists.  Id., at 452–453.  We held that 
the First Amendment prohibited such compelled disclosure. 
Id., at 466.  We explained that “[e]ffective advocacy of both
public and private points of view, particularly controversial 
ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association,” id., at 
460, and we noted “the vital relationship between freedom
to associate and privacy in one’s associations,” id., at 462. 
Because NAACP members faced a risk of reprisals if their
affiliation  with  the  organization  became  known—and  be-
cause  Alabama  had  demonstrated  no  offsetting  interest 
“sufficient to justify the deterrent effect” of disclosure, id., 
at 463—we concluded that the State’s demand violated the 
First Amendment. 

B 
1 
NAACP v. Alabama did not phrase in precise terms the
standard of review that applies to First Amendment chal-
lenges to compelled disclosure.  We have since settled on a 
standard  referred  to  as  “exacting  scrutiny.”  Buckley  v. 
Valeo,  424  U. S.  1,  64  (1976)  (per  curiam).  Under  that 
standard, there must be “a substantial relation between the 
disclosure  requirement  and  a  sufficiently  important  gov-
ernmental interest.”  Doe v. Reed, 561 U. S. 186, 196 (2010) 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    “To  withstand  this 
scrutiny, the strength of the governmental interest must re-
flect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amend-
ment  rights.”  Ibid.  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
Such scrutiny, we have held, is appropriate given the “de-
terrent  effect  on  the  exercise  of  First  Amendment  rights”