In 2018, the NRA accused Maria Vullo, then-Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), of using her regulatory powers over banks and insurance companies to force them to deny basic financial services to the NRA. He was sued for doing so. In Vullo’s own words, it is a group that “propaganda other guns.” The NRA’s complaint openly alleges that Mr. Vullo sought to punish the NRA because he disagreed with its political advocacy, and ordered all banks and insurance companies in New York to “sever ties” with the NRA. They claim that they have taken advantage of these threats by issuing formal guidance asking them to do so. The NRA has promised leniency if certain insurers cease doing business with the NRA, and has ordered the group’s three major “affinity insurance” providers to never sell such insurance to the NRA again. A consent order was imposed requiring it not to be provided.
The district court held that the NRA’s claims that Vullo used threats and inducements to force regulated entities to sever ties with the NRA meant that she violated the NRA’s First Amendment right to free expression. The court ruled that the claim was sufficient. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling, essentially finding that Vullo was just going about his business as usual, not engaging in unconstitutional censorship. He also said Vullo’s actions were justified because the NRA’s views were widely unpopular in New York, suggesting that unpopularity allows regulators to punish controversial or offensive speech. did. Her logic strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether the First Amendment allows government regulators like Mr. Vullo to threaten retaliation against companies that collaborate with controversial advocacy groups.
In its opening brief, the ACLU asked the Supreme Court to apply precedent set in 1963. Bantam Books vs. SullivanThe law states that unofficial, indirect efforts by government officials to suppress or punish speech by pressuring third-party intermediaries are a First Amendment law, just like direct censorship. , and rejected the Second Circuit’s suggestion that regulators could rely on the unpopularity of speech. Speech that serves as the basis for suppressing it. Rejecting the Second Circuit’s dangerous inference in this case, bantam books More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court now has an opportunity to protect the marketplace of ideas by shielding all advocacy groups from government overreach.
