Back in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear NRA v. Vullo, where the National Rifle Association alleged that New York government officials violated the First Amendment by pressuring financial intermediaries to cut off or reduce their business ties to the NRA. At that point, the ACLU and its then-National Legal Director David Cole agreed to represent the NRA before the Supreme Court; indeed, Cole argued the case (extremely effectively, I thought).
This decision was controversial within the ACLU; indeed, the New York affiliate of the ACLU (the NYCLU) put out a public statement "strongly disagree[ing]" with the ACLU's decision to represent the NRA. The ACLU of New Mexico likewise dissented. But the ACLU leadership went ahead with the representation, presenting what I thought was a powerful Left-Right coalition before the Court.
And I take it that the ACLU's rationale wasn't just that the NRA deserved to have its rights vindicated; I assume that they also recognized that what New York was doing to a conservative speaker, conservative states (or a conservative federal government) could do to liberal speakers. First Amendment precedents protecting (or restricting) speakers on the left have long been later used to protect (or restrict) speakers on the right, and vice versa. For an explicit statement by Cole along these lines in a different NRA case brought by the New York AG, see here: "If the New York attorney general can do this to the NRA, why couldn't the attorney general of a red state take similar action against the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, or Everytown for Gun Safety?"
