Harrison v. NAACP
| Harrison v. NAACP | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 23–24, 1959 Decided June 8, 1959 |
|
| Full case name | Harrison, Attorney General of Virginia, et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al. |
| Citations | 360 U.S. 167 (more)
79 S. Ct. 1025; 3 L. Ed. 2d 1152; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1760
|
| Prior history | 159 F.Supp. 503 (D.C.E.D.Va.1958) |
| Holding | |
| District court erred in deciding the constitutionality of state law before state courts had a reasonable opportunity to construe them. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by Black, Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker, Stewart |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Warren, Brennan |
Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167 (1959), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia should have abstained from deciding the constitutionality of three barratry, champerty, and maintenance laws in the state of Virginia until state courts had had a reasonable chance to construe them.
On September 10, 1956, as part of the Massive Resistance movement, 16 bills were introduced in a special session of the Virginia General Assembly aimed a curbing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Virginia. Five of the bills expanded the state's definitions of barratry, champerty, and maintenance. Barratry is the "stirring up" of litigation by inducing individuals or organizations to sue when they otherwise would not. Champerty occurs when a third party (not the plaintiff nor their legal counsel) assumes the risks and financial costs of a lawsuit in return for a portion of the monetary award. Maintenance occurs when a third party supports or promotes a litigant's suit in such a way as to prolong litigation when the parties would otherwise have brought an end to litigation or settled the suit. The eleven other bills collectively required the following groups to file a financial report and membership list annually with state: any group which promotes or opposes state legislation aimed at any race; any organization attempting to influence public opinion on behalf of any race; or any group raising funds to employ legal counsel in connection with racial litigation. By the end of the special session, these had been collapsed into six "legal business" bills. They were significantly amended in committee to meet the constitutional concerns of a number of legislators. The bills were merged so that only five were reported from the committee and passed by the Assembly.
...
Wikipedia