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 group’s 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 NRA’s 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 Vullo’s conduct amounted to a First Amendment violation.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the free speech claim, opining that Vullo’s guidance was written “in an evenhanded, nonthreatening tone and employed words intended to persuade rather than intimidate,” according to court filings.
“The Second Circuit’s opinion below gives state officials free rein to financially blacklist their political opponents—from gun-rights groups, to abortion-rights groups, to environmentalist groups, and beyond,” the NRA wrote in court filings.
Among others, the NRA’s 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 nation’s 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,” Vullo’s 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.
