Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo 602 U.S. ___ (2024) is a United States Supreme Court case which held that if Maria T. Vullo, the former director of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), attempted to coerce financial institutions in the state to refrain from doing business with the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), then such conduct would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Background

Following the Parkland high school shooting, the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria T. Vullo advised banks and insurance companies in the state of New York not to provide services to the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), an organization that lobbies in support of gun rights in the United States. The NRA sued Vullo, alleging a First Amendment violation.[1] A three-judge panel of United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the NRA, affirming a lower court's dismissal of the case. Judge Denny Chin wrote that while government officials may not "use their regulatory powers to coerce individuals or entities into refraining from protected speech… government officials have a right — indeed, a duty — to address issues of public concern."[2]

Supreme Court

The NRA appealed the Second Circuit's decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 3, 2023.[2][3] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2024. The NRA was represented by David D. Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Vullo was represented by former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal.[4]

The Court released its opinion on May 30, 2024, vacating the Second Circuit's decision and remanding the case to the lower court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the Court's unanimous decision, favoring the NRA, stating that "Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors."[5] The decision further held that government officials cross the line into impermissible coercion when they engage in conduct “that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech.”[6] Justice Sotomayor explained that, “At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.”[6]

References

  1. ^ "PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Supreme Court of the United States. February 7, 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 11, 2023. Retrieved 29 May 2024.
  2. ^ a b Liptak, Adam (November 3, 2023). "Supreme Court to Hear N.R.A.'s Free Speech Case Against New York Official". The New York Times. Retrieved March 22, 2024.
  3. ^ John Fritze (March 18, 2024). "Supreme Court grapples with claim that New York pressured businesses to cut ties with NRA". CNN. CNN. Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved 29 May 2024.
  4. ^ Howe, Amy (March 18, 2024). "Court sympathetic to NRA's free speech claim". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved March 22, 2024.
  5. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (May 30, 2024). "Supreme Court rules for NRA in New York government coercion battle". NBC News. Retrieved June 1, 2024.
  6. ^ a b French, David (2024-06-02). "Opinion | Civil Liberties Make for Strange Bedfellows". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-06-03.

External links

Categories
Table of Contents