|
''NAACP v. Button'', 371 U.S. 415 (1963) is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the reservation of jurisdiction by a federal district court did not bar the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a state court's ruling, and that the state of Virginia's laws on barratry, champerty, and maintenance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. ==Background== As part of its Massive Resistance policy, on September 29, 1956, the Virginia General Assembly enacted five statutes regulating lawyers, forbidding the practices of barratry, champerty, and maintenance.〔"School, NAACP Bills Signed by Gov. Stanley." ''Washington Post.'' September 30, 1956.〕 Barratry is the "stirring up" of litigation by inducing individuals or organizations to sue when they otherwise would not.〔Dickson, p. 314.〕 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 bills were specifically aimed at curbing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which group many segregationists believed was "stirring up" integration lawsuits against the Commonwealth.〔"Bills Aimed at NAACP Stir Va. Assembly Fight." ''Washington Post.'' September 11, 1956.〕 The bills also collectively required annual filings of financial reports and membership lists any group which promotes or opposes state legislation aimed at (1) any race, (2) any organization attempting to influence public opinion on behalf of any race, or (3) any group raising funds to employ legal counsel in connection with racial litigation.〔 The Virginia NAACP filed suit in federal court in 1956 against the Attorney General of Virginia, to have the five barratry, champerty, and maintenance laws thrown out as an unconstitutional infringement of its members' rights under the 1st Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.〔Dickson, p. 315.〕 The district court overturned three of the laws on constitutional grounds, and remanded the remaining two to state courts. The newly elected Attorney General, Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In ''Harrison v. NAACP'', 360 U.S. 167 (1959), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the constitutionality of the laws until state courts had had a reasonable chance to construe them. The NAACP then sued Virginia Attorney General Robert Young Button, who had succeeded Harrison (who had resigned to run for and was elected Governor), in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond to have the two remaining statutes overturned on constitutional grounds, but the state court upheld both laws.〔''NAACP v. Button'', 371 U.S. 415, 418.〕 The NAACP appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which upheld one statute but not the other.〔 The NAACP appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「NAACP v. Button」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|