Supreme Court unanimously rules for NRA in free speech fight

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that the National Rifle Association (NRA) can move forward in its free speech fight against a former New York regulator.

Authored by liberal judge Sonia Sotomayor, the decision revives the gun rights group’s First Amendment claim against Maria Vullo, who previously ran the New York Department of Financial Services.

Vullo began investigating the NRA in 2017, and the investigation led her to encourage insurance companies and banks she regulated to sever ties with the gun rights group following the Parkland, Florida, school shooting that killed 17 students and staff. and reignited a national debate surrounding gun control measures.

The NRA asserted that Vullo’s measures went beyond permitted advocacy and amounted to unconstitutional government coercion.

Thursday’s ruling allows the NRA’s case to proceed, but the gun rights group won’t necessarily achieve a victory in the end as its legal burden will increase in later stages. The justices also made clear that a lower court could still find Vullo entitled to qualified immunity even if his actions were unconstitutional.

“Vullo was free to criticize the NRA and pursue admitted violations of New York insurance law,” Sotomayor wrote.

“She could not exercise her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s advocacy of gun promotion,” the opinion continued. “Because the complaint plausibly alleges that Vullo did just that, the Court finds the NRA asserted a violation of the First Amendment.”

The case drew some unusual battle lines.

Despite their deep disagreement over the Second Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union represented the NRA before the high court in its fight, the first time the groups had come together.

“This is a historic victory for the NRA and for all who care about First Amendment freedoms,” NRA Counsel William A. Brewer III said in a statement. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy. This is a victory for the millions of NRA members and the freedoms that define America.”

Vullo’s attorney argued that his investigation constituted permissible government speech and a legitimate application of the law.

The regulator was investigating NRA-endorsed insurance programs, leading some companies to recognize that their programs were illegal. The NRA also criticized comments made by Vullo during an alleged private meeting with Lloyd’s, an insurance giant.

“We are disappointed with the Court’s decision,” Neal Katyal, who argued the case on Vullo’s behalf, said in a statement.

“As the Court’s decision makes clear, given the stance of this case, this decision required the Court to treat the NRA’s untested allegations as true, even though these allegations lacked evidentiary merit,” Katyal continued. “The NRA’s allegations about the Lloyd’s meetings are false and Ms. Vullo did not threaten, coerce or retaliate against anyone in the performance of her duties.”

When the Supreme Court heard the case in Marchseveral justices appeared persuaded by the NRA’s arguments — although Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion, at one point backed down.

She suggested to the NRA lawyer at one point “it sounds to me like you’re trying” to break new ground in the court’s First Amendment jurisprudence.

“Ultimately, the critical conclusion is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from selectively exercising their power to punish or suppress speech, either directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries,” Sotomayor wrote in the court opinion. superior on Thursday.

While all of the justices agreed with Sotomayor’s opinion, two members of the bench also wrote separately.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief one-paragraph opinion to further explain his understanding of the court’s decision.

And liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a concurring opinion that the lower courts had improperly lumped together the NRA’s allegations of censorship and retaliation, encouraging them to be disentangled as the case progressed.

“In pretrial detention, parties and lower courts should consider theories of censorship and retaliation independently, mindful of the distinction between government coercion and the ways in which such coercion may (or may not) have violated the NRA’s constitutional rights.” , Jackson wrote.

Updated at 11:47 a.m. EDT