The final accusation basically restated previously mentioned fails to comply. The state argued that the business continued to operate under illegality due to the law previously set. It was the main argument for the state, yet was clearly set to deter the activity of the organization. The organization responded with a truthful statement. They did not follow the state’s statue because their projects were not offensive nor implied to harm any citizen of Alabama, and the state’s action of requiring personal information violated freedoms granted to the people that were listed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Within the amendment, defined under section one, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities …show more content…
They argued that in view of the records held of individual members of the organization, the rights of their individuals would be infringed in public due to their common belief. They believed the government requirement of these identities were only justified with a small interest of the state’s gains and more or less obtained to ridicule the members. The Supreme Court mentioned that the right to assemble and “engage in association’” was an indispensible part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state is also held to be observed in order to ensure the act would not politically terrorize the members of the NAACP. The court also realized that the infringement of rights, whether unintended or not, are results of various government actions of all levels. They also decided that Alabama’s regulation on foreign businesses, used to properly regulate commerce, had discouraged participation in constitutional rights. The state was wrong for upholding its statue against the NAACP in such a way. The actions performed by the state government may seem to have no involvement with personal rights, but the act of specifically challenging a company for their belief was unconstitutional and violated rights assured under the First and Fourteenth