Source: https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/bates-et-al-v-city-of-little-rock-et-al/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:50:22+00:00

Document:
FIRE > Miscellaneous > Civil Rights First Amendment Cases > BATES et al. v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK et al.
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.Robert L. Carter argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was George Howard, Jr.
*517 Joseph C. Kemp argued the cause for the City of Little Rock, respondent. With him on the brief was C. Richard Crockett.
Municipalities in Arkansas are authorized by the State to levy a license tax on any person, firm, individual, or corporation engaging in any “trade, business, profession, vocation or calling” within their corporate limits. Pursuant to this authority, the City of Little Rock and the City of North Little Rock have for some years imposed annual license taxes on a broad variety of businesses, occupations, and professions. Charitable organizations which engage in the activities affected are relieved from paying the taxes.
In 1957 the two cities added identical amendments to their occupation license tax ordinances. These amendments require that any organization operating within the municipality in question must supply to the City Clerk, *518 upon request and within a specified time, (1) the official name of the organization; (2) its headquarters or regular meeting place; (3) the names of the officers, agents, servants, employees, or representatives, and their salaries; (4) the purpose of the organization; (5) a statement as to dues, assessments, and contributions paid, by whom and when paid, together with a statement reflecting the disposition of the funds and the total net income; (6) an affidavit stating whether the organization is subordinate to a parent organization, and if so, the latter’s name. The ordinances expressly provide that all information furnished shall be public and subject to the inspection of any interested party at all reasonable business hours.
“F. I am attaching my affidavit as president indicating that we are a Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a New York Corporation.
After refusing upon further demand to submit the names of the members of her organization, each petitioner was tried, convicted, and fined for a violation of the ordinance of her respective municipality. At the Bates trial evidence was offered to show that many former members of the local organization had declined to renew their membership because of the existence of the ordinance in question. Similar evidence was received in the Williams *522 trial, as well as evidence that those who had been publicly identified in the community as members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had been subjected to harassment and threats of bodily harm.
On appeal the cases were consolidated in the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and, with two justices dissenting, the convictions were upheld. 229 Ark. 819, 319 S. W. 2d 37. The court concluded that compulsory disclosure of the membership lists under the circumstances was “not an unconstitutional invasion of the freedoms guaranteed. . .” but “a mere incident to a permissible legal result.” Because of the significant constitutional question involved, we granted certiorari. 359 U. S. 988.
Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government *523 based upon the consent of an informed citizenry—a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the preservation of liberty. U. S. Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 460.
Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105; American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 402; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, supra; Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147. “It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute [an] effective . . . restraint on freedom of association. . . . This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.. . . Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.” N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S., at 462.
On this record it sufficiently appears that compulsory disclosure of the membership lists of the local branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would work a significant interference with the freedom of association of their members. There was *524 substantial uncontroverted evidence that public identification of persons in the community as members of the organizations had been followed by harassment and threats of bodily harm. There was also evidence that fear of community hostility and economic reprisals that would follow public disclosure of the membership lists had discouraged new members from joining the organizations and induced former members to withdraw. This repressive effect, while in part the result of private attitudes and pressures, was brought to bear only after the exercise of governmental power had threatened to force disclosure of the members’ names. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S., at 463. Thus, the threat of substantial government encroachment upon important and traditional aspects of individual freedom is neither speculative nor remote.
Decision in this case must finally turn, therefore, on whether the cities as instrumentalities of the State have demonstrated so cogent an interest in obtaining and making public the membership lists of these organizations as to justify the substantial abridgment of associational freedom which such disclosures will effect. Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449. See also Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158; Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77.
It cannot be questioned that the governmental purpose upon which the municipalities rely is a fundamental one. No power is more basic to the ultimate purpose and function of government than is the power to tax. See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 150. Nor can it be doubted that the proper and efficient exercise of this *525 essential governmental power may sometimes entail the possibility of encroachment upon individual freedom. See United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22; Hubbard v. Mellon, 55 App. D. C. 341, 5 F. 2d 764.
It was as an adjunct of their power to impose occupational license taxes that the cities enacted the legislation here in question. But governmental action does not automatically become reasonably related to the achievement of a legitimate and substantial governmental purpose by mere assertion in the preamble of an ordinance. When it is shown that state action threatens significantly to impinge upon constitutionally protected freedom it becomes the duty of this Court to determine whether the action bears a reasonable relationship to the achievement of the governmental purpose asserted as its justification.
The municipalities have not suggested that an activity so described, even if conducted for profit, would fall within any of the occupational classifications for which a license is required or a tax payable. On oral argument counsel for the City of Little Rock was unable to relate any activity of these organizations to which a license tax might attach. And there is nothing in the record to indicate *527 that a tax claim has ever been asserted against either organization. If the organizations were to claim the exemption which the ordinance grants to charitable endeavors, information as to the specific sources and expenditures of their funds might well be a subject of relevant inquiry. But there is nothing to show that any exemption has ever been sought, claimed, or granted— and positive evidence in the record to the contrary.
We concur in the judgment and substantially with the opinion because we think the facts show that the ordinances as here applied violate freedom of speech and *528 assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment which this Court has many times held was made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, as for illustration in Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S. 584, at 600, dissenting opinion adopted by the Court in 319 U. S. 103; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, at 108; Kingsley Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684. And see cases cited in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 529, at 530 (concurring opinion).
Moreover, we believe, as we indicated in United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, 48, at 56 (concurring opinion), that First Amendment rights are beyond abridgment either by legislation that directly restrains their exercise or by suppression or impairment through harassment, humiliation, or exposure by government. One of those rights, freedom of assembly, includes of course freedom of association; and it is entitled to no less protection than any other First Amendment right as N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, at 460, and De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, at 363, hold. These are principles applicable to all people under our Constitution irrespective of their race, color, politics, or religion. That is, for us, the essence of the present opinion of the Court.
 Ark. Stat., 1947, § 19-4601.
 Little Rock Ord. No. 7444. North Little Rock Ord. No. 1786. These ordinances have been amended numerous times by adding various businesses, occupations and professions to be licensed, and by changing the rates of the taxes imposed.
“Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the City Council of the City . . . .
“Section 1. The word `organization’ as used herein means any group of individuals, whether incorporated or unincorporated.
“A. The official name of the organization.
“B. The office, place of business, headquarters or usual meeting place of such organization.
“C. The officers, agents, servants, employees or representatives of such organization, and the salaries paid to them.
“D. The purpose or purposes of such organization.
“E. A financial statement of such organization, including dues, fees, assessments and/or contributions paid, by whom paid, and the date thereof, together with the statement reflecting the disposition of such sums, to whom and when paid, together with the total net income of such organization.
“F. An affidavit by the president or other officiating officer of the organization stating whether the organization is subordinate to a parent organization, and if so, the name of the parent organization.
“Section 3. This ordinance shall be cumulative to other ordinances heretofore passed by the City with reference to occupation licenses and the collection thereof.
“Section 4. All information obtained pursuant to this ordinance shall be deemed public and subject to the inspection of any interested party at all reasonable business hours.
“Section 5. Any section or part of this ordinance declared to be unconstitutional or void shall not affect the remaining sections of the ordinance, and to this end the sections or subsections hereof are declared to be severable.
“At a regular meeting of the North Little Rock City Council held in the Council Chamber on December 9, 1957, I was instructed to request a list of the names and addresses of all the officers and members of the North Little Rock Branch of the NAACP.
 The Arkansas Supreme Court construed § 2E of the ordinances as requiring disclosure “of the membership list.” 229 Ark., at ___, 319 S. W. 2d, at 41.
 The cities do not challenge petitioners’ right to raise any objections or defenses available to their organizations, nor do the cities challenge the right of the organizations in these circumstances to assert the individual rights of their members. Cf. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, at 458-459.
 A “catch-all” provision of the Little Rock ordinance imposes an annual tax upon “[a]ny person, firm, or corporation within the City . . . engaging in the business of selling any and all kinds of goods, wares, and merchandise, whether raw materials or finished products, or both, from a regularly established place of business maintained within the City . . . .” The tax is measured by “the gross value of the average stock inventory for the preceding year,” with a minimum of $25. It was conceded on oral argument by counsel for the City of Little Rock that this provision was inapplicable. No brief was filed nor oral argument made on behalf of the City of North Little Rock.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19
 § 2
 v.