The National Rifle Association scored a major victory at the Supreme Court Thursday, as the justices unanimously ruled that appeals judges were too quick to dismiss the NRA’s claims that New York officials violated its First Amendment rights by targeting its insurance business.
The decision reinstated a lawsuit the NRA filed in 2018 against New York state’s top financial services regulator, Maria Vullo, after she announced a plan to pressure banks and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun-rights organization.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has repeatedly sided against the NRA in Second Amendment cases, wrote the court’s opinion concluding that the state’s actions — if ultimately proven — intruded on the group’s constitutionally protected advocacy. Sotomayor reached that conclusion even though the NRA has admitted that some of the insurance policies it was selling in New York violated state law.
“Vullo was free to criticize the NRA and pursue the conceded violations of New York insurance law,” wrote Sotomayor, the most senior liberal justice and an appointee of President Barack Obama. “She could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against [state-]regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. … The First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.”
Sotomayor also noted that the state’s actions against insurance companies appeared to be part of a broader campaign by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo to put the NRA in “financial jeopardy” and “shut them down.”
The case was being closely watched for its potential impact on a similar dispute the high court is also set to rule on involving the Biden administration’s efforts to cajole social media companies to remove or obscure posts containing alleged misinformation about the coronavirus, elections and other issues.
A judge found that effort also appeared to include coercion that violated the First Amendment and he ordered broad limits on contacts between federal officials and the social media firms. The justices put that order on hold while they considered the case, which is expected to be decided in the coming weeks.
Two justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch, filed concurring opinions in the NRA case. Jackson’s focused on legal nuances that could be critical to the outcome of the case about alleged government coercion of the social media firms.
“Recognizing the distinction between government coercion and a First Amendment violation is important because our democracy can function only if the government can effectively enforce the rules embodied in legislation,” wrote Jackson, adding that the claim of coercion “merely invites, rather than answers the question whether that coercion indirectly worked a violation of the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.”
Gorsuch wrote a brief opinion faulting the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed the NRA claims, for overreliance on a “four-pronged” test to resolve the case.
A lawyer for the NRA, William Brewer, hailed the high court’s decision.
"This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” Brewer said. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy. This is a victory for the NRA’s millions of members and the freedoms that define America."
A spokesperson for the New York State Department of Financial Services declined to comment on the ruling. However, attorney Neal Katyal, who argued for Vullo at the Supreme Court, expressed confidence she will ultimately prevail in the suit.
“As the Court’s decision makes clear, because of the posture of this case, this ruling required the Court to treat the NRA’s untested allegations as true even though these allegations have no evidentiary merit,” Katyal said. “Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights. Ms. Vullo enforced the insurance law against admitted violations by insurance entities.”
from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/i3uRFwV
https://ift.tt/ubPxBKH
0 Comments