Walter Duerson
2023-11-03 19:58:32 UTC
The Supreme Court said Friday it will hear a case brought by the National
Rifle Association (NRA) that accuses a former New York regulator of
infringing on the groups speech by discouraging banks and insurers from
working with it.
In April 2018 two months after the deadly mass shooting at a Parkland,
Fla., high school Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York
State Department of Financial Services, urged banks and insurers to
consider the reputational risks of working with the NRA, according to
court filings.
The gun rights group filed suit against Vullo and former New York Gov.
Andrew Cuomo (D), saying the NRA had suffered tens of millions of dollars
in damages due to the officials blacklisting of the group in violation
of their First Amendment rights.
In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the NRAs
appeal after they lost in a lower court.
Although the case has also included disputes over immunity, the Supreme
Court agreed to take up the case only to weigh in on whether Vullos
conduct amounted to a First Amendment violation.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the free speech claim, opining
that Vullos guidance was written in an evenhanded, nonthreatening tone
and employed words intended to persuade rather than intimidate, according
to court filings.
The Second Circuits opinion below gives state officials free rein to
financially blacklist their political opponentsfrom gun-rights groups, to
abortion-rights groups, to environmentalist groups, and beyond, the NRA
wrote in court filings.
Among others, the NRAs request was backed by 20 Republican state
attorneys general and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression,
a free-speech advocacy group.
Vullo urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case, saying the issue
was already settled precedent and presented no split among the nations
federal appeals courts.
[The] Second Circuit was right that the Complaint does not adequately
allege that Respondent crossed the line between permissible persuasion and
unconstitutional coercion when, in the wake of the Parkland shooting, she
issued public statements to thousands of industry participants encouraging
them to examine their ties to gun promotion organizations, Vullos
attorneys wrote in court filings.
Although the legal issue does not concern the Second Amendment, it is one
of multiple cases before the Supreme Court this term related to guns.
Next week, the court will hear arguments in a major Second Amendment
dispute as the justices decide whether to uphold a criminal federal ban on
gun possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders.
Also on Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide the legality of a
Trump-era ban on bump stocks this term.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4292526-supreme-court-to-
hear-nra-free-speech-lawsuit-against-ny-official/
Rifle Association (NRA) that accuses a former New York regulator of
infringing on the groups speech by discouraging banks and insurers from
working with it.
In April 2018 two months after the deadly mass shooting at a Parkland,
Fla., high school Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York
State Department of Financial Services, urged banks and insurers to
consider the reputational risks of working with the NRA, according to
court filings.
The gun rights group filed suit against Vullo and former New York Gov.
Andrew Cuomo (D), saying the NRA had suffered tens of millions of dollars
in damages due to the officials blacklisting of the group in violation
of their First Amendment rights.
In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the NRAs
appeal after they lost in a lower court.
Although the case has also included disputes over immunity, the Supreme
Court agreed to take up the case only to weigh in on whether Vullos
conduct amounted to a First Amendment violation.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the free speech claim, opining
that Vullos guidance was written in an evenhanded, nonthreatening tone
and employed words intended to persuade rather than intimidate, according
to court filings.
The Second Circuits opinion below gives state officials free rein to
financially blacklist their political opponentsfrom gun-rights groups, to
abortion-rights groups, to environmentalist groups, and beyond, the NRA
wrote in court filings.
Among others, the NRAs request was backed by 20 Republican state
attorneys general and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression,
a free-speech advocacy group.
Vullo urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case, saying the issue
was already settled precedent and presented no split among the nations
federal appeals courts.
[The] Second Circuit was right that the Complaint does not adequately
allege that Respondent crossed the line between permissible persuasion and
unconstitutional coercion when, in the wake of the Parkland shooting, she
issued public statements to thousands of industry participants encouraging
them to examine their ties to gun promotion organizations, Vullos
attorneys wrote in court filings.
Although the legal issue does not concern the Second Amendment, it is one
of multiple cases before the Supreme Court this term related to guns.
Next week, the court will hear arguments in a major Second Amendment
dispute as the justices decide whether to uphold a criminal federal ban on
gun possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders.
Also on Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide the legality of a
Trump-era ban on bump stocks this term.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4292526-supreme-court-to-
hear-nra-free-speech-lawsuit-against-ny-official/