The National Rifle Association claimed that a warning from an official that partnering with the National Rifle Association would expose companies to “reputational risk” violated its constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the National Rifle Association could pursue a claim against a New York State official who encouraged companies to cut ties with the gun-rights group. This was deemed to be unlawful coercion.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NRA could continue to assert that Maria Vullo’s actions as the former superintendent of New York State Department of Financial Services violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

Two cases were before the justices regarding allegations of government pressure on private entities. The case that has yet to be decided involves allegations that the Biden Administration unlawfully pressed social media companies to remove certain content.

1776 Coalition Sponsored Join the Fight against Evil Ever since the serpent entered the Garden of Eden, evil has fought to overcome good. What we’ve seen infecting America these last few years is an extension of that evil. The Coalition for Jewish Values is fighting all these fronts—from Pennsylvania Avenue—to main street—to anywhere common sense and Biblical Values are under attack. Will you stand with us in this fight?.

In a ruling issued on Thursday, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court that government officials could not coerce private parties to punish or suppress views the government does not like. She added that the NRA could plausibly claim that Vullo did “just that.”

William Brewer said that the ruling was “a landmark victory for the NRA” and for all those who are concerned about the First Amendment.

Vullo may argue, when the case is returned to the lower courts, that she’s protected by qualified immunity. This defense allows public officials to avoid liability if at the time they committed the alleged misconduct they weren’t aware that their conduct was unconstitutional.

The NRA appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York a ruling from 2022. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Vullo’s actions were not illegal conduct and therefore the free speech claim was dismissed.

In a lawsuit filed in 2018, the gun rights group focused on an investigation conducted by Vullo’s office about insurance companies with which the NRA worked to provide coverage to its members. The NRA is based out of Virginia, but it was incorporated in New York.

Vullo also urged banks and insurance companies to reconsider their relationships with groups that support gun rights in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people in 2018.

Vullo’s lawyers argued it was well-established that a government official of her status could encourage entities that they consider reputational risk.

Sotomayor wrote that in her ruling on Thursday, she found nothing in the decision to give advocacy groups immunity against government investigations or to “prevent government officials from condemning views they disagree with”.

Neal Katyal said that one of Vullo’s attorneys is confident in her ability to win the case on grounds of qualified immunity.

“Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights. Ms. Vullo enforced insurance laws against insurance entities that admitted to violating the law,” he said. He added that the letters Vullo wrote to insurance companies were “routine and important tools regulators utilize to inform and advice the entities they supervise about risks.”

The American Civil Liberties Union usually supports left-leaning issues, but the NRA received legal help from them. The ACLU stated that its decision to represent this group “reflects the important First Amendment principles at issue in this case.”

David Cole, group’s legal manager, said that the ruling “confirms the fact that government officials do not have the right to use their regulatory authority in order to blacklist disfavored groups.”