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.
