The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday in a lawsuit brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against a former New York state official. The NRA alleges that the official, a former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, used her regulatory power to pressure banks and insurance companies to blacklist the NRA following the tragic school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
The NRA contends that the official, Maria Vullo, targeted the group for its gun-rights stance, which the NRA argues is a violation of the First Amendment. Vullo, on the other hand, maintains that she merely shared guidance about potential reputational risks associated with working with gun groups and did not exert pressure on companies.
The case has drawn attention as the ACLU, representing the NRA, argues that the lawsuit could set a precedent for government officials to target other groups based on their beliefs, such as those supporting abortion rights or environmental protections.
In a separate case being heard on the same day, the Supreme Court is considering the government's authority to regulate controversial social media posts related to topics like COVID-19 and election security.
The NRA's lawsuit alleges that Vullo used a state investigation into the legality of NRA-endorsed insurance products to pressure insurance companies to sever ties with the NRA. The NRA had been offering insurance policies to its members that covered losses resulting from intentional acts involving firearms.
Vullo's legal team argues that the insurance products violated state law by covering intentional acts and criminal defense costs. They also maintain that the guidance letters sent to banks and insurance companies were part of her official duties and not coercive.
A federal appeals court in New York previously ruled in favor of Vullo, finding that she had qualified immunity as a government official. The NRA has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, claiming that Vullo's actions had an implied threat due to her regulatory authority over New York companies.
The Justice Department has also weighed in on the case, suggesting that while the NRA's claims may have merit, a broad ruling on the guidance letters could potentially restrict officials' free speech rights.
