Can the Unpaid Volunteers, Board Members and Organization of the non-profit Alcoholics Anonymous be sued in a court of law? At least one think tank believes so...

Pennywise , your wrong. If a sponsor coerced a sponsee to go to the bank take out money $7,000 to get the sponsors husbands friend who beat up the sponsee and dove her to make sure she did it rather then tell her to stay away from him...Then he go tout of jail and obtw , the two men did time in a rehab or maybe even prison together, just speculating...Then two weeks later when said victim wants to trow man who beat her up out of apartment , he refuses and beats her to death. I think there is a case.

I dont care if you once were a lawyer...you dont know what you are talking about. The Boy Scouts were sued and lost. the Catholic Church was sued a lost AA in NY will lose this one and hundreds of other cases will follow once they feel empowered.

Orange, I post this only because it is a rare treat when you chime in. Anyway, here is what the United States Supreme Court had to say in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 918-20 (1982) [emphasis mine]:

The First Amendment similarly restricts the ability of the State to impose liability on an individual solely because of his 919*919 association with another. In Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 229, the Court noted that a "blanket prohibition of association with a group having both legal and illegal aims" would present "a real danger that legitimate political expression or association would be impaired." The Court suggested that to punish association with such a group, there must be "clear proof that a defendant `specifically intend[s] to accomplish [the aims of the organization] by resort to violence.'" Ibid. (quoting Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 299).[53] Moreover, in Noto v. United States the Court emphasized that this intent must be judged "according to the strictest law,"[54] for "otherwise there is a danger that one in sympathy with the legitimate aims of such an organization, but not specifically intending to accomplish them by resort to violence, might be punished for his adherence to lawful and constitutionally protected purposes, because of other and unprotected purposes which he does not necessarily share." Id., at 299-300.

In Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, the Court applied these principles in a noncriminal context. In that case the Court held that a student group could not be denied recognition at a state-supported college merely because of its affiliation with a national organization associated with disruptive and violent campus activity. It noted that "the Court has consistently disapproved governmental action imposing criminal sanctions or denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen's association with an unpopular organization." Id., at 185-186. The Court stated that "it has been established that `guilt by association alone, without [establishing] that an individual's association poses the threat feared by the Goverument,' is an impermissible basis upon which to deny First Amendment rights." Id., at 186 (quoting United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 265). "The government has the burden 920*920 of establishing a knowing affiliation with an organization possessing unlawful aims and goals, and a specific intent to further those illegal aims." 408 U. S., at 186 (footnote omitted).[55]

The principles announced in Scales, Noto, and Healy are relevant to this case. Civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence. For liability to be imposed by reason of association alone, it is necessary to establish that the group itself possessed unlawful goals and that the individual held a specific intent to further those illegal aims.[56] "In this sensitive field, the State may not employ `means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.' Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960)." Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U. S. 175, 183-184.