The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment case that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups, CNN reports. The decision means the NRA may continue to pursue its lawsuit against a New York official who urged banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights group after the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school that left 17 people dead. “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. The NRA claimed that Maria Vullo, as superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, not only leaned on insurance companies to part ways with the gun lobby but threatened enforcement actions against those firms if they failed to comply.
At the center of the dispute was a meeting Vullo had with insurer Lloyd’s of London in 2018 in which the NRA claims she offered not to prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with the campaign against gun groups. Vullo tried to wave off the significance of the meeting, arguing that the NRA’s allegations of what took place were not specific. Vullo, who served in former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration, said her enforcement targeted an insurance product that is illegal in New York: third-party policies sold through the NRA that cover personal injury and criminal defense costs following the use of a firearm. Critics called the policies “murder insurance.” The decision will provide some clarity to government regulators about how far they may go to pressure private companies that do business with controversial advocacy groups. The American Civil Liberties Union, which usually sits opposite the NRA in the debate over guns, agreed to represent the group at the Supreme Court. A lower court judge denied some of the NRA’s claims but allowed its First Amendment arguments to proceed against Vullo. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, concluding that Vullo’s actions were not coercive. It also ruled that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields government officials from lawsuits in some circumstances.
Comments