In Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Supreme Court held that a state law requiring nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors' identities violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of association. The court found that this requirement was an unconstitutional burden on political speech and association because it chilled potential donors from contributing due to fear of retaliation or harassment for their support. Furthermore, the court noted that there were less restrictive alternatives available to achieve any legitimate governmental interest in donor disclosure without infringing upon constitutional rights. As such, they struck down North Carolina’s donor disclosure law as unconstitutional and affirmed lower courts’ decisions against it.

In Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that North Carolina’s criminal trespass statute was unconstitutional as applied to the NAACP’s picketing activities. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice White and joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun and Rehnquist. Justice White argued that the majority opinion was too broad and that the Court should have limited its ruling to the facts of the case. He argued that the Court should not have declared the entire statute unconstitutional, as it could have a chilling effect on the state’s ability to protect its citizens from trespassers. He also argued that the Court should not have relied on the First Amendment to reach its decision, as the NAACP’s activities were not protected by the First Amendment. Justice White also argued that the Court should have given more weight to the state’s interest in protecting its citizens from trespassers. He argued that the Court should have considered the state’s interest in protecting its citizens from trespassers, as well as the NAACP’s interest in engaging in peaceful picketing activities. He argued that the Court should have balanced the two interests and found a way to protect both. In conclusion, Justice White argued that the Court should have limited its ruling to the facts of the case and should have balanced the state’s interest in protecting its citizens from trespassers with the NAACP’s interest in engaging in peaceful picketing activities. He argued that the Court’s ruling was too broad and could have a chilling effect on the state’s ability to protect its citizens from trespassers.