U.S. Supreme Court considers NRA’s free speech fight with New York officials

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday discussed whether a New York state official who allegedly pressured banks and insurance companies to avoid doing business with the influential organization can be sued for violating the National Rifle Association’s constitutional free speech rights. , because the organization advocates for gun rights.

The NRA is seeking to revive a 2018 lawsuit accusing Maria Vullo, the former director of the New York Department of Financial Services, of unlawful retaliation after a mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that killed 17 people.

The justices heard arguments as the National Rifle Association appealed a lower court’s decision to dismiss Vullo’s lawsuit. The question is whether Vullo violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech by using regulatory power to force New York financial institutions to cut ties with the NRA.

Some of the questions the judge asked were intended to distinguish between permissible government advocacy and unlawful pressure.

“How do you define when you go too far?” conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked David Cole, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union civil rights advocacy group that represents the NRA.

Cole argued that Vallow and other New York officials abused their power in violation of the First Amendment, telling the judge: “There is no question from the record that they encouraged people to punish the National Rifle Association.”

After the 2018 Parkland shooting, Vullo called on banks and insurance companies to consider the “reputational risks” of doing business with gun rights groups.

She later fined Lloyd’s of London and two other insurers more than $13 million for offering an NRA-endorsed product called “Carry Guard,” which Vullo’s office found violated New York insurance law. This product provides liability coverage to policyholders for injuries resulting from gunfire, even in cases involving improper use of a firearm.

The insurance company agreed to stop selling NRA-endorsed products that New York considers illegal.

The NRA’s lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, accusing Vullo of unlawful retaliation through “implicit censorship” against the organization for its constitutionally protected gun rights advocacy. The lawsuit alleges the state’s “blacklisting” campaign is designed to deprive the NRA of basic financial services and threaten its advocacy efforts.

Ephraim McDowell, a Justice Department attorney representing President Joe Biden’s administration, urged a judge to let the NRA proceed with its lawsuit, arguing the group had merit in claiming Vullo violated its First Amendment rights .

McDowell focused on the NRA’s claim that Ullo met with Lloyd’s insurance executives to present her views on gun control and suggested that if the company stopped insuring the NRA, it would Adopt a lenient approach to regulatory violations.

“This was a clear threat,” said McDowell, the deputy assistant U.S. attorney general.

“A bit jarring”

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh urged Vullo’s attorney, Neal Katyal, to explain why the Biden administration supports the NRA because the government is interested in protecting its right to promote its views.

“I guess to me it’s a little bit disturbing to have the deputy attorney general on the other side of you in this case,” Kavanaugh said.

Vullo said in court documents that her statements after the Parkland shooting encouraging financial institutions to examine their relationships with pro-gun groups “did not cross the line between permissible persuasion and unconstitutional coercion.”

Katyill accused the NRA of “trying to weaponize the First Amendment and exempt themselves from the rules that govern you and me simply because they are a controversial speaker.”

“When you’re in a situation like this where you admit to breaking the law,” Cartier said, “there’s an obvious alternative explanation for what Ms. Vullo did here, which is to enforce the law.”

In 2021, a federal judge dismissed all but two free speech charges against Vullo. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in 2022 that the lawsuits should also be dismissed, prompting the NRA to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The NRA initially also named Vallow’s department and then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, as defendants, but the case was later narrowed. Ulo was charged in both his official and personal capacities. The 2nd Circuit held that Vullo would be immune from the lawsuit under the legal defense of qualified immunity, which protects officers from civil lawsuits in certain circumstances.

The National Rifle Association is the largest and most powerful gun rights organization in the United States and has played an important role in blocking gun restrictions supported by Democrats in the U.S. Congress. It is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of New York with its principal offices in Virginia.

The appeal heard Monday is the latest case before the Supreme Court involving the National Rifle Association. The National Rifle Association, a group with close ties to Republicans, opposes gun control measures and supports key lawsuits to expand gun rights in the United States.

The Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, takes a broad view of gun rights.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.