Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
National Rifle Association (NRA) headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.
CNN
—
The Supreme Court on Monday weighed in on an unusual First Amendment appeal by the National Rifle Association against New York's financial regulator, which persuaded banks and insurance companies to sever ties with gun rights groups.
The NRA alleges that former New York State Financial Services Commissioner Maria Vullo not only asked insurance companies to break with the gun lobby, but also threatened enforcement action if the companies did not comply. . Vullo disagrees.
Some members of the court appear to be particularly concerned about a meeting Mr. Vullo had with Lloyd's of London in 2018, in which the NRA agreed that as long as Mr. Vullo cooperated with its campaign against gun groups, He claims he has offered not to prosecute other violations.
Vullo said her enforcement targeted an insurance product that is illegal in New York: third-party insurance sold through the NRA that covers personal injury and criminal defense costs after the use of a firearm. Critics called this insurance “murder insurance.”
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said at one point that Mr. Vullo's position would not change even if the director pulled out a “pistol” and pointed it at the top of a company and encouraged them to sever ties with the NRA. suggested that it meant. Mr. Vullo could argue that he is simply targeting an illegal insurance product, which is enough for him to “allege” coercion.
Conservatives on the court weren't the only ones asking Mr. Vullo tough questions. Several liberal members of the court also asked why her efforts appeared to extend beyond products illegal under New York state law.
“What she was seeking was to ban even programs that might be legal,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at one point.
A court ruling later this year will test the extent to which government regulators, liberal or conservative, can pressure the companies they monitor to do business with controversial entities. Become.
“The worry is that we don't necessarily want to allow states to use this kind of regulatory power to start applying a kind of third-party pressure,” said Georgetown Law Professor Caroline Fredrickson.
The danger, he said, is that regulators in red and blue states could start requiring insurance companies and banks to cut off coverage to disadvantaged advocacy groups and businesses.
“On the other hand,” Fredrickson said. “We don't want regulators to be able to influence who insurance companies insure.”
If other insurance companies have distanced themselves from the NRA, Vullo argues, it's because they no longer want to do business with the group. At least some groups parted ways with the NRA after the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that killed 17 people.
The suit may be based in part on a meeting Mr. Vullo had with Lloyd's of London in 2018, in which the NRA said that as long as Mr. Vullo cooperated in a campaign against gun groups, He claims that he has offered not to prosecute for violations of the law.
“Government officials are free to express their opinions, but they cannot use that authority to pressure others to punish speech based on those views,” the NRA wrote in a brief to the high court. Stated.
In court documents, Mr. Vullo denied the significance of the meeting and argued that the NRA's claims were not specific.
Vullo served in the administration of former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. She resigned from her position in 2019.
A U.S. district court rejected some of the NRA's claims, but allowed First Amendment claims against Vullo to proceed. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, concluding that Vullo's actions were not coercive. The court also ruled that Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from lawsuits in some circumstances.
“Government officials cannot, for example, use their regulatory authority to compel individuals or entities to refrain from engaging in protected speech,” U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote. “But at the same time, government officials have a right, and indeed an obligation, to address public concerns.”
The NRA relies on Bantam Books v. Sullivan, a 1963 Supreme Court case that dealt with a Rhode Island commission that threatened to take sellers to the police if they sold books deemed obscene. The Supreme Court ruled that such “unofficial censorship” was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard a related case involving the White House, federal agencies and social media. There, Republican officials from two states and social media users from five different states have accused the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment by trying to pressure platforms like Facebook and X to remove disinformation. It is alleged that the
The majority of the Supreme Court appeared highly skeptical of the arguments advanced by both countries.
This article and heading have been updated with additional developments.
