Naaco v. Button - Case Brief PDF

Title Naaco v. Button - Case Brief
Course Civil Liberties
Institution University of California Irvine
Pages 1
File Size 40.2 KB
File Type PDF
Total Downloads 74
Total Views 155

Summary

Case Brief...


Description











NAACP v. Button Facts ○ Virginia, in response to Brown v. Board of Education and desegregation, passes the Stanley Plan, a series of pro-segregation laws signed into law by Virginia governor Thomas Stanley ○ Some of the laws regulated lawyers, including those lawyers for the NAACP, by expanding ethical violations to include stirring up litigation by organizations, assuming the risk and financial cost for parties or providing legal support to parties who would have otherwise settled cases ○ NAACP was involved in several high profile desegregation cases during this time and often used certain cases as test balloons to see if ○ …. ○ …. Procedural Posture ○ NAACP files suit in the Circuit Court of Richmond to find certain provisions inapplicable. The Circuit Court finds against the NAACP ○ The case appealed …. ○ … ○ … Issue: ○ Is the VA statute regulating “capping” and “running” as defined as a “solicitation” an abridgement of First Amendment rights - in this case to select one’s own attorney? Rule: ○ There is no proscribed rule here - the Court looks at the law and its effect and inquires as to whether or not it too broadly attempts to regulate the right of assembly - in this case the right to select one’s attorney ○ This looks a lot like strict scrutiny again - does the law achieve a compelling interest and is it narrowly tailored to do so? Analysis: ○ VA says that it’s not regulating speech of individuals, but of a corportation ○ … ○ … ○ How about the State’s other compelling interest? ■ State claims that the law is about maintaining a high standard of professionalism in the legal community, not about restricting speech ■ State’s prohibition did not constitute a compelling interest to the Court in the way it was drafted - while there is an interest in protecting individuals from malicious prosecution, the exercise of free speech rights to enforce a party’s constitutional rights through litigation was a superior interest...


Similar Free PDFs