Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech decision to curb government pressure campaign

CNN
—

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld the National Rifle Association’s First Amendment ruling, a decision that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups.

The decision means the NRA’s lawsuit against New York state officials who urged banks and insurers to cut ties with gun rights groups following the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people dead could continue.

“Government authorities may not coerce private citizens to punish or suppress views the government dislikes,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal justice, wrote in the opinion for the court.

“Ultimately, the key point is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from using their power to selectively punish or suppress speech,” Sotomayor added.

The NRA alleges that Maria Vullo, the former head of the New York State Department of Financial Services, not only pressured insurance companies to break with the gun lobby, but also threatened enforcement action if the insurers did not comply.

At the center of the controversy was a meeting Mr. Vallow had with insurance company Lloyd’s of London in 2018. The NRA alleges that Mr. Vallow offered not to prosecute other violations as long as the company cooperated with its campaign against gun control groups. Mr. Vallow has tried to deny the significance of the meeting, arguing that the NRA’s allegations were not specific.

Vullo, who served in the administration of former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, said the enforcement would target a product that is illegal in New York state: third-party policies sold through the NRA that cover bodily injury and criminal defense costs after the use of a firearm. Critics call the policies “murder insurance.”

The decision will provide some clarity to government regulators, both liberal and conservative, about how far they can pressure private companies that do business with controversial advocacy groups.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson each wrote two concurring opinions in which they said they agreed with the court’s decision.

In his six-page concurring opinion, Judge Jackson emphasized that cases such as this depend heavily on the facts at issue.

“Whether and if the government’s coercion of a third party violates the other party’s First Amendment rights will depend on the facts of the case,” she wrote. “Different circumstances — who is being coerced into doing what, and why — may give rise to different First Amendment inquiries.”

The court’s decision did not mention a separate, pending, related case dealing with whether the Biden administration exerted undue pressure on social media platforms such as X and Facebook to remove content it deemed misinformation.

Both cases were heard on the same day in March.

While the NRA is likely to make its Second Amendment arguments before the Supreme Court, it has gained an unfamiliar ally in its First Amendment arguments: The American Civil Liberties Union, which typically opposes the NRA in gun debates, has agreed to represent the NRA before the court.

A federal district court denied some of the NRA’s claims but allowed the First Amendment lawsuit against Vallow to proceed. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Vallow’s actions were unenforceable. It also ruled that Vallow was entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from lawsuits under certain circumstances.

The NRA relied heavily on a 1963 Supreme Court decision. Bantam Books v. SullivanThe case involved a Rhode Island commission that had threatened to report sellers to the police if they sold books it deemed obscene. The Supreme Court ruled that such “informal censorship” was unconstitutional.

This story has been updated with additional details.