A state enacts a law requiring all organizations that advocate for social change to disclose their membership lists to the state government. A nonprofit advocacy group challenges the law, arguing that it violates the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is the most appropriate constitutional ground for striking down this law?
The law violates equal protection because it discriminates against organizations advocating for social change.
The law unlawfully usurps the exclusive power of the federal government to regulate political organizations.
The law impermissibly chills associational freedom by requiring membership disclosures that may expose members to harassment or retaliation.
The law constitutes an overbroad restriction on political speech by preventing individuals from joining organizations for advocacy purposes.
The correct answer identifies that compelled disclosure of association membership can inhibit or deter individuals from engaging in lawful association, particularly when the association is involved in politically or socially sensitive advocacy. The precedent set by NAACP v. Alabama (1958) clarified that such disclosures violate the First Amendment when they suppress or chill associational activities. Other answers are incorrect because either they misconstrue constitutional protections or fail to focus on the key principle established in previous rulings regarding associational privacy.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the significance of *NAACP v. Alabama* in relation to freedom of association?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean when a law is described as 'chilling' associational freedom?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the First Amendment protect against compelled disclosure of association membership?