Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech ruling that curbs government pressure campaigns | CNN Politics (2024)

Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech ruling that curbs government pressure campaigns | CNN Politics (1)

An image made with a drone shows the headquarters of the National Rifle Association in Fairfax, Virginia, on August 10, 2020.

CNN

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups.

The decision means the NRA may continue to pursue its lawsuit against a New York official who urged banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights group following the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people dead.

“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior liberal, wrote for the court.

“Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech,” Sotomayor added.

The NRA claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, not only leaned on insurance companies to part ways with the gun lobby but threatened enforcement actions against those firms if they failed to comply.

At the center of the dispute was a meeting Vullo had with insurance market Lloyd’s of London in 2018 in which the NRA claims she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with the campaign against gun groups. Vullo tried to wave off the significance of the meeting, arguing in part that the NRA’s allegations of what took place were not specific.

Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech ruling that curbs government pressure campaigns | CNN Politics (2)

Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, in November 2018 in Albany, New York.

Vullo, who served in Democratic former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration, said her enforcement targeted an insurance product that is illegal in New York: third-party policies sold through the NRA that cover personal injury and criminal defense costs following the use of a firearm. Critics dubbed the policies “murder insurance.”

The decision will provide some clarity to government regulators — both liberal and conservative — about how far they may go to pressure private companies that do business with controversial advocacy groups.

“This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” William A. Brewer III, a lawyer for the association, said in a statement. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy.”

An attorney for Vullo said they were “disappointed by the court’s decision” but noted that a lower court that previously sided with her on a different legal basis may ultimately reaffirm that decision.

“Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights,” the attorney, Neal Katyal, said in a statement. “Ms. Vullo enforced the insurance law against admitted violations by insurance entities, andindustry letters such as those issued by Ms. Vullo are routine and important tools regulators use to inform and advise the entities they oversee about risks.”

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned two separate concurrences in which they said they agreed with the court’s decision.

In her six-page concurrence, Jackson stressed that cases like the one at hand turn heavily on the facts that give rise to the controversy.

“Whether and how government coercion of a third party might violate another party’s First Amendment rights will depend on the facts of the case,” she wrote. “Different circ*mstances — who is being coerced to do what, and why — may implicate different First Amendment inquiries.”

The court’s opinion made no mention of another pending and related case dealing with whether the Biden administration went too far in pressuring social media platforms like X and Facebook to remove content it views as misinformation.

The cases were argued on the same day in March.

While the NRA is more likely to be at the Supreme Court making Second Amendment arguments, it picked up unfamiliar allies with its First Amendment claim. The American Civil Liberties Union, which usually sits opposite the NRA in the debate over guns, agreed to represent the group before the Supreme Court.

A US district court denied some of the NRA’s claims but allowed its First Amendment arguments to proceed against Vullo. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, concluding that Vullo’s actions were not coercive. It also ruled that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials from lawsuits in some circ*mstances.

The NRA largely relied on a 1963 Supreme Court decision,Bantam Books v. Sullivan, that dealt with a Rhode Island commission that had threatened to refer distributors to police if they sold books deemed to be obscene. The Supreme Court held that such “informal censorship” was unconstitutional.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech ruling that curbs government pressure campaigns | CNN Politics (2024)

FAQs

What did the Supreme Court say about the NRA? ›

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the National Rifle Association's allegations that New York state officials coerced private companies to blacklist the group because of its political views stated a claim under the First Amendment, reversing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ...

Does the Supreme Court for the most part defend hate speech as free speech? ›

The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society. Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.

How did the US Supreme Court protect the right of free speech? ›

Historically, the Supreme Court has narrowly defined speech that is not protected under the First Amendment, thereby limiting the authority of the government and public officials to prohibit or prosecute speech, even if it is unpopular or deeply offends many people.

What was the Supreme Court ruling limiting free speech when it poses a clear and present danger ww1? ›

The Court ruled in Schenck v. United States (1919) that speech creating a “clear and present danger” is not protected under the First Amendment. This decision shows how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment sometimes sacrifices individual freedoms in order to preserve social order. In Schenck v.

Why did the Supreme Court invalidate the NRA? ›

The Court ruled that the NIRA assigned lawmaking powers to the NRA in violation of the Constitution's allocation of such powers to Congress.

Why did the Supreme Court declare the National Recovery Act NRA unconstitutional? ›

In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that the NRA law was unconstitutional, ruling that it infringed the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

Which Supreme Court case says not all speech is protected? ›

Incitement — speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — is unprotected by the First Amendment. The standard comes from the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v.

What limits have the Supreme Court placed on freedom of speech? ›

The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child p*rnography, fighting words, and threats. As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v.

Why did the Supreme Court rule that fighting words are not protected speech? ›

It ruled that such words are not protected by the First Amendment as free speech. Fighting words don't have a true idea or message, the court said, so the need to keep order can outweigh the need to protect the speech. Fighting words are not meant to continue a conversation or exchange ideas.

What is the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution? ›

Treason is a unique offense in our constitutional order—the only crime expressly defined by the Constitution, and applying only to Americans who have betrayed the allegiance they are presumed to owe the United States.

Which amendment gives the right to overthrow the government? ›

“From the floor of the House of Representatives to Truth Social, my GOP colleagues routinely assert that the Second Amendment is about 'the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary,' that it was 'designed purposefully to empower the people to be able to resist the force of ...

What is not covered by free speech? ›

The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child p*rnography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law.

What are three examples of speech the Supreme Court has banned? ›

Freedom of speech does not include the right:
  • To incite imminent lawless action. ...
  • To make or distribute obscene materials. ...
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. ...
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.

Did World War I make the world safe for democracy? ›

In forgetting the events of World War One, we also overlook one of its key consequences: the rescue of democracy around the world. America's raucous entry into global affairs during the war played a large role in saving the democratic order.

Which type of speech is not protected by the First Amendment? ›

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child p*rnography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false ...

What was the NRA decision today? ›

NRA Secures Landmark Legal Victory; Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against Former New York Regulator. The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a historic legal victory today in one of the most closely followed First Amendment cases in the nation.

What was the verdict of the NRA trial? ›

They found the NRA liable for mismanagement and certain executives liable for improperly diverting funds from the non-profit to benefit themselves or others close to them. And this ruling includes former NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, who resigned just days before the trial began.

When was the NRA deemed unconstitutional? ›

However, the Act was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in May 1935 with the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States decision [295 U.S. 495 (1935)], and was abolished January 1, 1936, by EO 7252.

What did the Supreme Court rule for the NRA in the New York government coercion battle? ›

The justices unanimously found 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 the superintendent of the New York state Department of Financial Services.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Mr. See Jast

Last Updated:

Views: 6335

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (75 voted)

Reviews: 90% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Mr. See Jast

Birthday: 1999-07-30

Address: 8409 Megan Mountain, New Mathew, MT 44997-8193

Phone: +5023589614038

Job: Chief Executive

Hobby: Leather crafting, Flag Football, Candle making, Flying, Poi, Gunsmithing, Swimming

Introduction: My name is Mr. See Jast, I am a open, jolly, gorgeous, courageous, inexpensive, friendly, homely person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.