1. Petitioner sued in a Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of a Virginia statute on the ground that, as applied to it, the statute violated the Fourteenth
Amendment. The District Court abstained from passing on the validity of the statute pending an authoritative interpretation of it by the state courts, but it retained
jurisdiction. Petitioner then applied to a state court for a binding adjudication of all of its claims and a permanent injunction and declaratory relief, and it made no
reservation to the disposition of the entire case by the state courts. A state trial court held the statute to be both constitutional and applicable to petitioner, and
this decision was affirmed by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Petitioner then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and this Court granted certiorari. Held: The District Court's reservation of jurisdiction was purely formal; it did not impair
the jurisdiction of this Court to review an otherwise final state court judgment; the judgment below was "final," within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and the
case is properly before this Court. Pp. 427-428 . 2. Chapter 33 of the Virginia Acts of Assembly, Extra Sess. 1956, amended former statutes defining and
punishing malpractice by attorneys so as to broaden the definition of solicitation of legal business to include acceptance of employment or compensation from any
person or organization not a party to a judicial proceeding and having no pecuniary right or liability in it. It also made it an offense for any such person or
organization to solicit business for any attorney. Petitioner, a corporation whose major purpose was the elimination of racial discrimination, sued in a state court
to enjoin enforcement of this Chapter and for a declaratory judgment [p*416] that, as applied to petitioner, its affiliates, officers, members, attorneys retained or
paid by it, and litigants to whom it might give assistance in cases involving racial discrimination, the Chapter violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court
found that petitioner, through its State Conference, had formed a legal staff to direct actions pertaining to racial discrimination; urged the institution of suits to
challenge racial discrimination; offered the services of attorneys selected and paid by it and its affiliates; and, with its affiliates, controlled the conduct of such
litigation. Held: The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of
Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Pp. 417-445 . (a) Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right and that of its members and
lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. P. 428 . (b) Abstract
discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful
ends, against governmental intrusion. P. 429 . (c) In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation is not a means of resolving private differences; it is a form of
political expression, and a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all governments, federal, state and local, for the members of the
Negro community. Pp. 429-430 . (d) In order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, it is
not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, for there is no longer any doubt that the
First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity. Pp. 430-431 . (e) Under Chapter 33, as authoritatively construed by the
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, a person who advises another that his legal rights have been infringed and refers him to a particular attorney or group of
attorneys for assistance has committed a crime, as has the attorney who knowingly renders assistance under such circumstances; there thus inheres in the statute
the gravest danger of smothering all discussion looking to the eventual institution of [p*417] litigation on behalf of the rights of Negroes; and, as so construed,
Chapter 33 violates the Fourteenth Amendment by unduly inhibiting protected freedoms of expression and association. Pp. 431-438 . (f) It is no answer to the
constitutional claims asserted by petitioner to say, as did the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, that the purpose of this statute was merely to insure high
professional standards, and not to curtail freedom of expression, for a State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional
rights. Pp. 438-439 . (g) However valid may be Virginia's interest in regulating the traditionally illegal practices of barratry, maintenance and champerty, that
interest does not justify the prohibition of petitioner's activities disclosed by this record. Pp. 439-443 . (h) Resort to the courts to seek vindication of
constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain. Pp. 443-444 . (i) Although
petitioner has amply shown that its activities fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest,
in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner's activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which. it has imposed. P. 444 . 202 Va. 142, 116
S.E.2d 55, reversed.
Back to First Amendment Surpreme Court Cases List