The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, on Thursday, May 30, in favor of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and in support of the First Amendment. In the ruling, SCOTUS found that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated the NRA’s rights under the First Amendment rights when it blacklisted the group over a controversial speaker.
The case stems from a 2018 lawsuit the NRA filed. In it, Fox News Digital reports, the NRA, which is based in New York, questioned whether a government regulator could threaten regulated entities such as the NRA if they do business with controversial personalities, such as controversial speakers. They claimed that the government acting on its own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint violates the First Amendment.
The court’s agreement with the NRA that it had a plausible case against New York was unanimous. In fact, even Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed and wrote that the high court “holds that the NRA plausibly alleged that [then-New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T.] Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s advocacy.”
The court added, “The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” meaning that the appellate court’s dismissal of the case was wrong and the case is to be remanded to the lower court, where the NRA can present its case.
Further, the opinion provided why the NRA’s case is plausible and grounded in legal theory, noting, “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.”
Continuing, it provided, “Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavor.” It then added that such illegal activity is what the NRA is alleging New York did, noting, “Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”
The opinion, then noting what Vullo allegedly did, noted, “As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA’s pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups.” It added, “Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.”
"*" indicates required fields
New York’s alleged actions were so egregious that even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a far-left civil rights group that is ideologically opposed the NRA, sided with it and said it is “proud” to defend the gun group’s “right to speak.” But while the NRA here has the ACLU as an ally, it also has far more conservative allies, such as former President Donald Trump. Watch him speak to the NRA in February of 2024 here:
The case will now head back to the lower court in which it was before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals incorrectly ruled that Vullo’s actions were reasonable and the NRA has no case. It remains to be seen how quickly it will proceed and what, if anything, will be done to restrain leftist bureaucrats from acting in such an unconstitutional way in the future.