Editing NAACP v. Alabama (section)

==Facts==
In 1956, the [[Attorney General of Alabama]], [[John Malcolm Patterson|John Patterson]], brought a suit to the State Circuit Court of [[Montgomery County, Alabama|Montgomery, Alabama]], challenging the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]] ([[NAACP]]) for violation of a state statute requiring foreign corporations to qualify before doing business in the state. The NAACP, a nonprofit membership corporation based in [[New York (state)|New York]], had not complied with the statute, as it believed it was exempt. The state suit sought both to prevent the Association from conducting further business within the state and, indeed, to remove it from the state.

Referring to the Association's involvement with the [[Montgomery bus boycott]] in 1955 and its role in funding and providing legal assistance to black students' seeking admission to the [[Alabama State University|state university]], the suit charged that the Association was "...{{nbsp}}causing irreparable injury to the property and civil rights of the residents and citizens of the State of Alabama for which criminal prosecution and civil actions at law afford no adequate relief{{nbsp}}...." On the day this suit was filed, the circuit court agreed to issue an ''[[ex parte]]'' order restraining the Association from conducting business in the state or taking steps to qualify it to do so.

The Association, represented throughout by [[Robert L. Carter]] of the [[NAACP Legal Defense Fund]], responded by moving to dissolve the order on the grounds that its activities within the state did not require its qualification under the statute and that the state's suit was intended to violate its rights to freedom of speech and of assembly as guaranteed by the [[Constitution of the United States]]. Before a hearing date was set, the state issued a [[subpoena]] for much of the Association's records, including bank statements and leases, but most notably the names and addresses of the "agents" or "members" of the Association in Alabama.

In its response to the lawsuit, the Association admitted that it was in breach of the statute and offered to obtain qualification to continue business if that part of the ''ex parte'' order was lifted.  Because the Association did not comply with the order to produce its records, that motion was denied and the Association was held in [[contempt of court|contempt]] and fined $10,000. The contempt order allowed for the reduction or remission of the fine if the production order was complied with within five days, after which the fine would be raised to $100,000.

Contending that the State could not constitutionally force disclosure of the records, the Association moved to dismiss the contempt judgment once more. According to Alabama case law, however, a petitioner could not seek a hearing or to dissolve an order until it purged itself of contempt.

[[File:Robert Carter and William Treanor.jpg|thumb|Lead attorney on ''NAACP v. Alabama'', Judge [[Robert L. Carter]] (left), with the dean of [[Georgetown University Law Center]], [[William Treanor]]]]The [[United States Supreme Court]] reversed the first contempt judgment. The Alabama Supreme Court then claimed the U.S. Supreme Court had relied on a "mistaken premise" and reinstated the contempt judgment, which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed again. The NAACP moved to try the case [[Merit (law)|on the merits]]; this motion was denied and again appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case to Alabama, and ordered the Federal district court to try the case on the merits if the Alabama court system continued to refuse to do so.

The Alabama state circuit court finally heard the case on the merits, and decided the NAACP had violated Alabama law and ordered it to stop doing business in the state; the Alabama appeals courts upheld this judgment, refusing to hear the NAACP's appeals on Constitutional grounds.  Finally, the fourth time the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, it granted ''[[certiorari]]'' and decided the case, itself, on the merits rather than remand the case to the balking Alabama court system, which had taken five years to get this far.