The National Rifle Association (NRA) has scored a significant First Amendment victory at the Supreme Court, with potential broad impacts for advocacy groups nationwide. The case involved the NRA suing Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, for allegedly using her position to coerce insurance companies and banks into cutting ties with the NRA.
Following the tragic Parkland School shooting in 2018, Vullo met with Lloyd’s of London. The NRA claims that during this meeting, Vullo suggested she would overlook other violations if Lloyd’s assisted in her efforts against gun groups. Vullo, who was part of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration, maintained that she was merely targeting policies illegal in New York.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision allows the NRA’s lawsuit against Vullo to proceed on First Amendment grounds. This ruling underscores that government officials cannot use their power to suppress or punish viewpoints they disagree with. Even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized this in her opinion, stating, “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
Justice Sotomayor further noted the critical takeaway: the First Amendment prohibits government officials from selectively wielding their power to suppress speech. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson both concurred with the decision, highlighting that such cases heavily depend on the specific facts and circumstances.
Judge Jackson’s concurrence stressed that the nature of government coercion and its impact on First Amendment rights will vary based on the details of each case. She pointed out that different scenarios could lead to different First Amendment inquiries. In this instance, the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing entities regulated by the Department of Financial Services into disassociating with the NRA to suppress gun-promotion advocacy.
The controversial policies targeted by Vullo included the NRA’s “Carry Guard” insurance program, which covered personal injury and criminal defense costs related to licensed firearm use. Critics dubbed this program “murder insurance.” After the Parkland shooting, New York aggressively enforced its insurance laws, steering insurers towards consent decrees where they admitted violations, agreed not to provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs, and paid substantial fines.
In April 2018, with former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s backing, Vullo issued guidance letters citing social backlash against the NRA following several mass shootings, including Parkland. She urged insurers and banks to cut ties with the NRA in the name of public health and safety, suggesting that failure to do so could result in enforcement actions.
This case was heard alongside another First Amendment case involving social media companies censoring “misinformation” during the pandemic. The ruling on that case is expected by the end of the term in late June, further illustrating the ongoing battles over free speech and government coercion.
