The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) claim that a former New York state official violated its free speech rights by urging companies to cut ties with the gun rights group. The NRA alleges that Maria Vullo, the then-superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, engaged in unlawful coercion.
The NRA’s appeal comes after a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that Vullo’s actions did not constitute unlawful conduct. The gun group argues that this ruling gives state officials the freedom to financially blacklist their political opponents.
The NRA’s claims are based on Vullo’s investigation into insurance companies that had worked with the gun rights group to provide coverage for its members. After the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Vullo also called on insurance companies and banks to reconsider their relationships with gun rights-affiliated groups. The NRA alleges that Vullo threatened institutions with investigations, regulatory scrutiny, and penalties if they continued their arrangement with the NRA.
The appeals court found that Vullo’s actions did not violate the First Amendment and that she would be protected from liability under qualified immunity, which shields government officials. Vullo’s lawyers argue that it is well-established that a government official can encourage entities to consider reputational risks.
While the NRA had initially sued former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo as well, the current appeal only focuses on Vullo. The lawsuit is part of a larger legal battle between the NRA and New York, where the state’s Democratic leadership has been openly hostile to gun rights and the NRA.
In a separate case, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the NRA and current and former senior officials in 2020, alleging fraud and mismanagement, and seeking to dissolve the organization. The NRA counter-sued, claiming political retaliation, but a judge dismissed that lawsuit in 2022.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the NRA’s appeal could have significant implications for the intersection of free speech rights and government actions. It will be a closely watched case that could ultimately shape the legal landscape when it comes to similar disputes in the future.
