WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the National Rifle Association can pursue a claim that a New York state official’s efforts to encourage companies to end their ties with the rights group firearms illegally constituted coercion.
The justices unanimously ruled that the NRA can move forward with arguments that its free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, then superintendent of the Department of Services. financiers of the State of New York.
It was one of two cases brought before the justices involving allegations of government coercion on private entities. The other, yet to be decided, concerns claims that the Biden administration illegally pressured social media companies when it urged them to remove certain content.
“Government officials may not attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views of which the government disapproves,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday’s ruling. The NRA, she added, plausibly claims that Vullo “did just that.”
The NRA appealed a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said Vullo’s actions did not constitute illegal conduct, meaning that Vullo’s claim freedom of expression had to be rejected.
In a lawsuit filed in 2018, the gun rights group focused on an investigation by Vullo’s office into insurance companies the NRA had worked with to provide coverage to its members. The firearms group is based in Virginia but was incorporated in New York,
Additionally, following the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school shooting in which 17 people were killed, Vullo urged insurance companies and banks to reconsider their relationships with affiliated groups to gun rights.
Vullo’s lawyers argue that it was well established that a government official in his position could encourage entities to consider reputational risks.
Sotomayor wrote in Thursday’s ruling that nothing in the ruling grants advocacy groups immunity from government investigations or “prevents government officials from forcefully condemning views with which they disagree.”
In this case, the NRA obtained legal assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, which generally supports left-wing causes. The ACLU said its decision to represent the gun rights group “reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at stake in this case.”