The Supreme Court rules for the NRA in its fight against coercion by the New York government

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the National Rifle Association can argue that a New York state official’s efforts to encourage companies to cut ties with a gun rights group constitute unlawful coercion.

The justices unanimously found that the NRA could continue to argue that its First Amendment free speech rights had been violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, then-director of the New York State Department of Financial Services.

The case was one of two pending in court involving the government’s alleged use of coercion against private entities. The second, which has not yet been resolved, involves claims that the Biden administration unlawfully pressured social media companies to remove certain content.

“Government officials may not attempt to pressure private entities to punish or suppress views that the government does not favor,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday’s ruling. The NRA, she added, convincingly maintains that Vullo “did just that.”

William Brewer, an attorney for the gun rights group, said the ruling was “a landmark victory for the NRA and for all who care about First Amendment freedoms.”

When the case returns to lower courts, Vullo could argue that it is protected by qualified legal immunity, which allows public officials to avoid liability if they were not notified at the time of the alleged conduct that their actions were unconstitutional.

The NRA appealed a 2022 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found Vullo’s actions did not constitute unlawful conduct, meaning the free speech claim should be dismissed.

In the 2018 lawsuit, the gun rights group focused on an investigation by Vullo’s office into insurance companies the NRA worked with to provide members with insurance. The gun group is based in Virginia but incorporated in New York,

Moreover, in the wake of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people, Vullo urged insurance companies and banks to reconsider any relationships they have with gun rights-affiliated groups.

Vullo’s lawyers argued that it was common knowledge that a government official in her position could encourage entities to consider reputational risks.

Sotomayor wrote in Thursday’s ruling that nothing in the decision gives proponent groups immunity from government investigations or “prevents government officials from forcefully condemning views with which they disagree.”

Neal Katyal, one of Vullo’s lawyers, said in a statement that he was confident she would ultimately prevail on the basis of qualified immunity.

“Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights. Ms. Vullo enforced insurance law in the event of violations admitted by insurance entities,” he added. The letters Vullo sends to insurance companies “are a routine and important tool that regulators use to inform and advise the entities they supervise about risks,” Katyal said.

In this case, the NRA received legal assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, which typically supports left-wing causes. The ACLU said its decision to represent the gun rights group “reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at issue in this case.”

David Cole, the group’s legal director, said the ruling “confirms that government officials should not use their regulatory powers to blacklist political groups that are discriminated against.”