In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Thursday, ruling that the New York State Department of Financial Services violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights by effectively blacklisting the group.
The decision, surprisingly authored by far-left Justice Sonia Sotomayor, affirmed that the NRA “plausibly alleged” that its free speech rights were stifled by the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) under directives perceived to be politically motivated.
The case, rooted in actions taken by former DFS Superintendent Maria T. Vullo, has ignited fierce debates over the intersection of regulation and free speech.
Vullo, acting on what many conservatives see as a directive from former Governor Andrew Cuomo, issued “guidance letters” to financial institutions in 2018 which effectively coerced them into severing ties with the NRA.
These actions followed closely on the heels of the Parkland shooting and were justified by Vullo as measures to mitigate “reputational risks” associated with gun advocacy groups.
According to Fox News, “The NRA agreed to pay $2.5 million and to refrain from offering insurance in New York for five years.”
Justice Sotomayor’s opinion firmly states, “The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
This significant rebuke overturns the Second Circuit’s dismissal of the NRA’s suit, enabling the organization to continue its legal battle against New York regulators who pressured insurers and bankers to cease business with the gun advocacy group.
“Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the decision.
“The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of intermediary strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted to target the NRA’s advocacy. Such a strategy allows government officials to “expand their regulatory jurisdiction to suppress the speech of organizations that they have no direct control over… Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners. Insurers in turn followed Vullo’s lead, fearing regulatory hostility.”
“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,” Sotomayor added.
