What do the NRA, the ACLU and nine U.S. Supreme Court justices from five presidential administrations have in common? The list may be relatively small. But on Thursday, the court issued a unanimous ruling that a New York government official violated Article 11 by allegedly pressuring insurance companies and banks to sever business relationships with the National Rifle Association, which is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. First Amendment, at least one overlap is obvious.
The decision reopens gun advocacy groups’ lawsuit against Maria Vullo, the former head of New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously ruled in her favor.
The case centers on Vullo’s advocacy following the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In private meetings with insurance companies after the tragedy, Ullo allegedly said she would selectively take enforcement action against groups that insist on serving the NRA.
She didn’t stop there. She also sent a letter titled “Risk Management Guidance Related to the National Rifle Association and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations” to insurance companies and banks, encouraging them to “continue to evaluate and manage their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from association with Risks arising from dealing with gun dealers”.the National Rifle Association or similar gun promotion organizations”; “review any relationship they have with the National Rifle Association or similar gun promotion organizations”; and “take prompt action to manage[e] In a press release with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the two officials urged the companies to end their relationships with the NRA.
The constitutional issues involved here are similar to those explored by the Court in the Constitution case. Murthy v. MissouriThe case asks whether President Joe Biden’s administration violated the First Amendment when it tried to persuade social media companies to remove unwanted content. During oral arguments in March, many justices seemed sympathetic to the administration officials’ views: no They went above and beyond the call of duty and were simply exercising their free speech rights to persuade these companies to adopt their point of view, which is no different than the White House press secretary promoting ideological leanings to the media.
But in NRA v. UroThe court unanimously ruled that Vullo’s conduct as alleged by the NRA crossed the line from persuasion to coercion. “Government officials cannot seek to coerce private parties to punish or suppress views with which the government disapproves,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. She said the NRA “reasonably claims that respondent Maria Ulo did just that.”
The decision sends the case back to the Second Circuit, which can still grant Vullo qualified immunity, which protects government officials from liability if the alleged misconduct is not “clearly established” in prior case law. Lawsuits like the NRA. This outcome is certainly possible because the 2nd Circuit’s original decision not only ruled that Vullo did not violate the Constitution (which the Supreme Court rejected today) but that even if she violated the Constitution, qualified immunity would have shielded her from the NRA Association’s accusations.
Yet it is hard to imagine a more obvious violation of the Constitution than weaponizing government power to undermine initiatives the country dislikes. The rationale for so-called qualified immunity is that taxpayer-funded public servants should be given fair notice that their actions are unlawful before victims seek recourse for those misconducts. It’s pretty scary to think that government agents can’t understand the contours of the First Amendment.
It may be difficult for many to separate constitutional issues from ideological context. After all, the NRA is one of the more polarizing lobbying organizations in the country, especially because its founding issue — gun rights — isn’t exactly a topic that elicits cool reactions in this country. Further, it also became an advocacy group that supported not just guns but the broader Republican Party and the identity politics associated with it, alienating large swaths of the population, to put it mildly.
There is another major group in the United States that follows a similar storyline, just on the other side of the political spectrum: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). It was once a staunch free speech group—strongly principled, defending the First Amendment rights of the Nazis—and in modern times it sometimes actively advocates be opposed to Civil liberties are violated when those principles run counter to progressive politics, an awkward move considering the organization’s name. But no matter how much you dislike one or both of them, the NRA and ACLU coming together here is more reflective of the fact that some things, like the First Amendment, really aren’t partisan.
