WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the National Rifle Association can pursue its claim that a New York state official’s efforts to encourage companies to end ties with the gun rights group constituted illegal coercion.
The justices unanimously concluded that the NRA can move forward with arguments that its free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, the then-superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services.
The case was one of two before the justices concerning alleged government coercion of private entities. The other, yet to be decided, involves allegations that the Biden administration illegally pressured social media companies when it urged them to remove certain content.
“Government officials may not attempt to coerce private entities in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday’s ruling. The NRA, she added, plausibly alleges that Vullo “did just that.”
William Brewer, an attorney for the gun rights group, said the ruling was a “historic victory for the NRA and for all who care about First Amendment freedoms.”
When the case returns to lower courts, Vullo can argue that she is protected by the legal defense of qualified immunity that allows public officials to escape liability if they had not been warned at the time of the alleged conduct that their actions were unconstitutional.
The NRA appealed a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said Vullo’s actions did not constitute unlawful conduct, meaning the free speech claim should be rejected.
In a 2018 filing, the gun rights group focused on an investigation by Vullo’s office into insurance companies that the NRA had worked with to provide coverage to members. The gun group is based in Virginia, but was formed in New York,
Additionally, in the aftermath of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people were killed, Vullo urged insurance companies and banks to reconsider any relationships they had with groups affiliated with gun rights.
Vullo’s lawyers argued that it was well established that a government official in his position could encourage entities to consider reputational risks.
Sotomayor wrote in Thursday’s ruling that nothing in the ruling gives advocacy groups immunity from government investigations or “prevents government officials from strongly condemning views with which they disagree.”
Neal Katyal, one of Vullo’s attorneys, said in a statement that he is confident she will ultimately prevail on qualified immunity grounds.
“Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights. Ms. Vullo enforced insurance law against admitted violations by insurance entities,” he added. The letters Vullo sent to insurers “are routine and important tools that regulators use to inform and advise the entities they supervise about risks,” Katyal said.
The case prompted the NRA to obtain legal assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, which generally supports left-leaning causes. THE ACLU he said his decision to represent the gun rights group “reflects the importance of First Amendment principles at stake in this case.”
David Cole, the group’s legal director, said the ruling “confirms that government officials have no business using their regulatory authority to blacklist disfavored political groups.”
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
