Supreme Court Hears Free Speech Case That Brought NRA and ACLU Together

Photo of author


The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case in which the National Rifle Association accused a former New York state official of improperly pressuring banks and insurers to cut ties with the gun rights group. after the Parkland, Florida, high school massacre in 2018. .

The case could have significant implications for free speech and how government officials intervene on contentious issues. The NRA has argued that the official targeted the group for his speech, violating the First Amendment, while the official responded that he was acting correctly in enforcing the law and expressing his political opinions.

In an unusual twist, the NRA is represented by the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, which says the group’s speech was clearly targeted.

The NRA says that as head of the New York State Department of Financial Services, Maria T. Vullo leaned on insurers to break with the NRA and used her significant authority over banks and insurance companies to force them to “put in place “blacklisting an organization because it opposes the political discourse of the organization.”

Vullo supposedly violated the First Amendment by, among other things, sending official guidance letters to banks and insurers after the Parkland shooting encouraging them to review relationships they had with them or similar gun rights organizations., said the NRA. The group also says Vullo investigated NRA-backed insurance policies and suggested to insurers they could avoid liability for other problems by cutting ties with the NRA.

In court papers, Vullo’s lawyers disputed the claim that she improperly forced companies to break with the NRA. Her lawyers said the insurance products in question violated New York law and posed “a serious and unique risk to public safety,” so it was reasonable for Vullo to prioritize them. And they rejected the suggestion that the NRA’s speech was targeted or hindered.

“The NRA alleges that Vullo interfered in its relationships with insurers and banks, limiting only what the NRA could do, not what it could say,” its lawyers wrote. “The NRA has never claimed, much less plausibly, that it could not exercise its right of expression.”

Both sides have warned of a dangerous precedent if the other emerges victorious. Vullo said accepting the NRA’s arguments in this case would “chill the discourse necessary for a functioning government” because public officials would be prevented from making critical comments that could be “rephrased in retaliation.”

Meanwhile, the NRA said Vullo’s side would effectively “give government regulators free rein to selectively target unpopular speech,” and warned that state officials could then target any number of political opponents, including abortion human rights groups or environmental organizations.

“If New York can do this to the NRA, Texas or Florida could use the same tactics against groups that defend immigrant rights, abortion rights or other vital civil liberties,” said David D. Cole, legal director of the NRA. ACLU, in a statement Monday.

Arguing on behalf of the NRA on Monday, Cole said Vullo’s actions crossed a clear line and abused the power of his office.

“Government officials are free to urge people not to support political groups they oppose,” Cole said during the arguments. “What they can’t do is use their regulatory power to add ‘or else’ to that request.”

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. said Monday that there was a spectrum to weigh when considering cases in which government officials urge a person or entity to act. He described an official on one end of the spectrum with significant power ordering someone to act or face significant punishment, and an official on the other end with no real authority making a suggestion.

“In between, there are many different gradations,” he said. “So how do you define when you go too far along that line?”

Cole responded by saying that an important factor is how much power the official involved has over the person or entity being targeted. But ultimately, he said, the question is whether “a reasonable person” would feel the request suggests a threat or consequence.

Neal K. Katyal, Vullo’s attorney, urged the judges not to accept the NRA’s claims, saying that would only empower other lawsuits that would hinder valid government enforcement actions.

The NRA is “trying to weaponize the First Amendment and exempt itself from the rules that govern you and me, simply because he is a controversial speaker,” said Katyal, who was acting attorney general under President Barack Obama.

In a statement after the arguments, Katyal said a decision in favor of the NRA would “fundamentally inhibit government speech on virtually any issue” and “empower an unlimited set of claims against the government based on empty arguments that any regulatory or enforcement action criminalizes NRA speech.” regulated.”

The NRA case is vitally important because a sweeping ruling could force government officials to retreat from public debate, said Alex Abdo, director of litigation at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute.

“On the one hand, we don’t want the government to be able to threaten… others into carrying out their censorship,” Abdo said. “On the other hand, we need an empowered government to be able to participate in public debate on the important issues of the day.”

However, not all observers are convinced that this is a free speech issue. Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, who signed an amicus curiae brief In the case supporting Vullo, he said his letters did not threaten anyone and only urged companies to review their ties to the NRA because of the potential reputational risk involved.

Stevenson said he and other law professors who focus on “the nerdy stuff of regulatory law” are baffled by the case because issuing “this kind of guidance is an everyday occurrence for regulators.”

the case is ANR vs. Vullo.

Leave a comment