Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed with a 5-4 vote. Writing for the majority, Justice Goldberg began by noting that the freedom of speech and the related freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments are "fundamental and highly prized, and need breathing space to survive." Compelled disclosure of membership in a legitimate organization may effectively restrain exercise of the freedom of association. On the other hand, the states have the power to conduct legislative investigations in order to protect their legitimate and vital interests. This includes the power to investigate Communist and subversive activities.

To strike a balance, Justice Goldberg articulated a slightly different test than the one applied by the Supreme Court of Florida. Relying on National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, the Supreme Court decided that when a legislative investigation infringes on the constitutional freedom of association, the government must show "a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest." Applying this balancing test, the Supreme Court held that the committee failed to show a substantial relation between the NAACP and the alleged Communist activities.

The Court reached this conclusion by carefully scrutinizing the testimony concerning alleged Communist membership in the NAACP. The Court decided that the testimony was weak. It only proved that at some unspecified time in the years before the investigation, 14 alleged Communists may have been members of, or attended meetings of, the Miami NAACP. Absent any evidence that the 14 alleged Communists had substantial participation in or control of the Miami branch, which had 1000 members in total, the evidence of Communist infiltration was weak. Without evidence linking the NAACP itself to subversive activity, the committee did not have a compelling interest that outweighed the infringement on the right of association.

Justices Black and Douglas each wrote concurring opinions. While they agreed with the result of the majority opinion by Justice Goldberg, they believed that the First Amendment freedom of association was an absolute right not subject to a balancing test. Justice Douglas wrote:

government is not only powerless to legislate with respect to membership in a lawful organization; it is also precluded from probing the intimacies of spiritual and intellectual relationships in the myriad of such societies and groups that exist in this country, regardless of the legislative purpose sought to be served.