On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in favor of the National Rifle Association in a case pertaining to the First Amendment.
The 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is expected to make it more challenging for state regulators to coerce advocacy organizations, as reported by CNN.
Consequently, the ruling permits the NRA to proceed with its lawsuit against a New York official who urged financial institutions and insurance companies to disassociate from the gun rights organization after the 2018 Parkland, Florida school shooting that claimed 17 lives.
“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” Sotomayor wrote. “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech.”
The NRA claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, pressured insurance companies to sever ties with the gun lobby and threatened enforcement actions against firms that did not comply, CNN noted.
The outlet continued:
At the center of the dispute was a meeting Vullo had with insurance market Lloyd’s of London in 2018 in which the NRA claims she offered to not 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 in part that the NRA’s allegations of what took place were not specific.
Vullo, who served in Democratic 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 dubbed the policies “murder insurance.”
The court’s decision will provide direction to government regulators, both liberal and conservative, on the extent to which they can exert pressure on private companies that do business with advocacy groups considered controversial by some.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, each wrote separate opinions concurring with the majority.
The court did not address a related case involving whether the Biden administration overstepped its authority by pressuring social media platforms such as X and Facebook to remove content it deems as misinformation.
Both cases were argued on the same day in March, according to CNN.
While the NRA typically presents Second Amendment issues before the Supreme Court, it found unexpected allies in its First Amendment claim.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), usually on the opposing side of the gun debate, agreed to represent the NRA before the Supreme Court.
A US district court allowed some of the NRA’s First Amendment arguments against Maria Vullo to proceed but denied others. However, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision by ruling that Vullo’s actions were not coercive and granting her qualified immunity, as reported by CNN.
The NRA’s case against Maria Vullo drew on a 1963 Supreme Court decision in Bantam Books v. Sullivan, which involved a Rhode Island commission threatening police involvement if distributors sold books deemed obscene. The Supreme Court deemed such “informal censorship” unconstitutional.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court added another case to its docket concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s administration of the Clean Water Act.
In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, SCOTUS Blog reported that justices will determine whether San Francisco’s discharge permit limitations into the Pacific Ocean violate the Clean Water Act by being too general and relying on “narrative” limits rather than clear ones defined by state law.
ICYMI: U.S. Accused of Taking Out Russian Nuclear Missile Early Warning System in Latest Escalation
