The Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association (NRA), alleging that a New York official violated the group’s First Amendment rights. The case centers on actions taken by Maria Vullo, the former head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, who urged banks and insurance companies to sever ties with the NRA following the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida.
In a unanimous decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor ruled that the NRA had sufficiently presented a case that Vullo crossed the line from permissible persuasion to impermissible coercion. The Court’s decision can be found here.
The incident that led to the lawsuit dates back to 2017, following an investigation into NRA-endorsed insurance programs in New York. After three insurance companies admitted that these programs violated state law, resulting in fines up to $7 million, Vullo issued statements and guidance letters urging financial institutions to reconsider doing business with organizations promoting firearms.
Following Vullo’s actions, several companies ceased their relationships with the NRA, leading the organization to file a lawsuit. While the district court initially allowed the case to proceed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed that decision, concluding that the NRA’s allegations did not amount to unconstitutional coercion and that Vullo would be entitled to qualified immunity.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the 2nd Circuit’s interpretation. Citing the Court’s 1963 decision in Bantam Books v. Sullivan, Sotomayor noted that the NRA plausibly alleged Vullo used her regulatory power to coerce companies into compliance, thereby infringing on the NRA’s free speech rights.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, stated that while multifactor tests could aid in evaluating coercion claims, they should not overshadow the fundamental question of whether conduct could be perceived as a threat to penalize speech. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also concurring, emphasized the distinction between government coercion and a First Amendment violation.
Neal Katyal, who represented Vullo, expressed disappointment with the decision but highlighted that the ruling was based on untested allegations. He remained confident in Vullo’s qualified immunity defense upon the case’s return to the appeals court. First Amendment advocacy groups, however, praised the decision for reaffirming the principle that the government cannot use its authority to suppress protected speech through coercion.
For further details, the original publication can be read here.