Supreme Court to Review Landmark First Amendment Case Advocated by NRA
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo case, marking a significant development in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the country. The NRA claims that Vullo, with the influence of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, used regulatory power to financially blacklist the association and suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech.
The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were a deliberate attempt to silence the organization by pressuring banks and insurers to sever ties with them. This was allegedly achieved through guidance letters, threats, and other measures intended to coerce financial institutions to disassociate themselves from the NRA.
Although the NRA’s First Amendment claims were initially upheld against multiple motions to dismiss, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck them down in 2022. The court claimed that it was reasonable for New York’s financial regulator to caution banks and insurance companies against supporting pro-gun groups, citing a perceived social backlash against such advocacy. Furthermore, the court ruled that Vullo’s guidance was merely an expression of her political preferences and not a directive to the regulated institutions.
The Supreme Court has granted review on the question of whether it is permissible for a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions based on their association with a controversial speaker. The NRA contends that the Second Circuit’s ruling enables state officials to freely target their political opponents and advocates for various causes, including gun rights, abortion rights, and environmentalism.
Several amicus briefs have been filed in support of the NRA, including those from 18 state attorney generals and joint filings by Texas and Indiana. Additional briefs were submitted by business and legal scholars, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and the Gun Owners of America.
The NRA argues that actions like those taken by New York officials to suppress disfavored civil rights organizations are prohibited by a long line of First Amendment cases, including precedents involving the NAACP and the Supreme Court’s Bantam Books decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also expressed concerns, stating that dismissing the NRA’s case would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. The ACLU cautioned that public officials would have a playbook for abusing regulatory power to harm disfavored groups without facing judicial scrutiny.
The NRA’s legal representation includes Eugene Volokh, William A. Brewer III, Sarah B. Rogers, and Noah Peters. As the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association of America, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) seeks to protect the rights of law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess, and use firearms in accordance with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision to review this First Amendment case presents a significant opportunity to address the issue of government regulators penalizing advocacy groups based on their association with controversial speakers. The outcome of the case will have far-reaching implications for the protection of free speech and the rights of organizations to engage in lawful activities without fear of retribution from state officials.
