FOLLOW US

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the National Rifle Association (NRA) can proceed with certain claims in its lawsuit alleging that a former New York state official violated the gun rights group's free speech protections by pressuring financial institutions to cut ties. In a unanimous decision, the high court found that the NRA sufficiently showed that former New York Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo likely breached the gun rights group's First Amendment protections through some, but not all, of the actions the NRA accused her of taking against banks and insurance agencies affiliated with it. The decision reverses a unanimous Second Circuit panel decision, which had found that the NRA's claims could not survive a motion to dismiss because it failed to show that Vullo's actions were coercive and that those claims would not survive Vullo's qualified immunity protections regardless. "A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. "What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression." The justices found that the NRA's allegations, when taken as a whole, met the court's test in its 1963 decision in Bantam Books Inc. v. Sullivan, which set the standard for when government action on speech transforms from convincing to unconstitutionally coercive. "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," Justice Sotomayor wrote. The suit traces back to an investigation Vullo and her agency conducted into the NRA-endorsed "Carry Guard" self-defense insurance program and related programs, which resulted in consent decrees in 2018 in which entities acknowledged the programs they were affiliated with illegally protected intentional criminal acts. In subsequent guidance letters, press statements, and meetings, Vullo urged banks and insurers to "continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations," and urged them to "join" companies that had cut ties, according to court documents. The NRA claimed that in a February 2018 meeting with senior executives at Lloyd's of London, Vullo paired her views on gun control with a suggestion that the insurer could avoid liability by discontinuing insurance to gun rights groups.