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.
The NRA, represented in part by the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Supreme Court that Vullo’s actions clearly crossed the line and set a dangerous precedent of regulators wielding their powers to persecute groups for protected speech activities.
Vullo, in turn, urged the justices to uphold the Second Circuit’s ruling, saying that she acted within her authority and that allowing the NRA to proceed would open the floodgates to endless First Amendment claims that would effectively chill government regulation and erode prosecutorial immunity.
The justices’ decision is also a win for the U.S. government, which filed an amicus brief pressing the court for a narrow NRA win because the alleged meeting between Vullo and the Lloyd’s underwriter provided a “straightforward basis” for reversal and an avenue to avoid “harder questions” raised by other regulatory actions.
