The National Association of Manufacturers says it will continue to appeal a court decision requiring it to name its members, after two setbacks Monday.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rebuffed a request from NAM to delay enforcement of a lobbying law in the second decision of the day against NAM. Earlier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused the same request.

Lobbying reports that include the membership details were due Monday.

Quentin Riegel, NAM’s deputy general counsel, acknowledged the group had a “difficult hurdle to overcome” to get a stay. NAM will continue to appeal its case to the Court of Appeals, he said.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly upheld the law’s disclosure requirement in an April 11 ruling. The judge rejected NAM’s bid for a stay April 18. On Monday, a three-judge appeals panel composed of Karen L. Henderson, Judith Ann Wilson Rogers and David S. Tatel came to the same conclusion.

The law (PL 110-81) requires umbrella lobbying groups such as NAM to disclose every member that contributes at least $5,000 to lobbying efforts during a quarter and “actively participates in the planning, supervision or control of such lobbying activities.”

In denying NAM’s request for a stay, Kollar­-Kotelly said delaying the deadline for the detailed lobbying reports could throw the disclosure scheme into disarray and confuse other organizations about their obligations.

She quoted the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in saying that “acts of Congress [are] presumptively constitutional.”

Failing to report carries a penalty of $200,000 and five years in prison.

NAM, which fields about 35 lobbyists, contends that the law is too vague, failing to define how much participation is required by a member organization to require the parent group to name it as a member. The group spent more than $6 million last year on in-house lobbying.

The appeal could take months.

NAM lawyers contend that its list of lobbying members is a trade secret, and that once revealed, “the bell cannot be unrung.”

“On the other hand, no one pretends there is anything magic about this coming Monday,” NAM lawyer Thomas Kirby wrote to Kollar-Kotelly last week.

The normal test for issuance of a stay is whether NAM stands a reasonable chance to win on appeal. But Kollar-Kotelly reviewed the 2007 law under the toughest standard, called strict scrutiny, and found it was justified as a way for Congress to learn who is behind lobbying efforts.

U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, who is defending the law, said the “scales tip heavily against” NAM’s request.

He said Congress and the public deserve to know who stands behind lobbying pressures and that the threat of reprisals against NAM’s members is conjectural.

Rather than filing detailed forms with the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House, NAM could fulfill the law’s disclosure requirements by listing its lobbying members on its Web site.

First posted April 21, 2008 11:16 p.m.