There is no risk of overgeneralization to assert that the two organizations represent the polar opposite sides of the American political spectrum. But they found common ground in a key First Amendment case involving the government’s ability to suppress the free speech rights of the people.
After the ACLU announced on Saturday it was added as co-counsel for the case, NRA President Charles Cotton expressed his appreciation for the assistance. “The NRA is proud to stand with the ACLU and others who recognize this important truth: regulatory authority cannot be used to silence free speech.”
Cotton added, “This case is important not only to the Association, but all who openly advocate for the causes and issues in which they believe.”
The NRA challenge was filed in 2018 after the revelation of a shocking misuse of power. Former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo, following orders from former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), reportedly blacklisted the venerable gun rights organization.
The result was pressuring financial institutions and insurers to slash important ties to the NRA.
Of course, the group struck back at this obviously illegal tactic. It correctly asserted that the blacklisting violated its First Amendment rights through “backroom threats” from Vullo against firms regulated by New York. She allegedly warned of “reputational risks” with doing business with the NRA and other Second Amendment-related organizations.
This coercion was allegedly paired with assurances of leniency on different possible infractions if the blacklisting went into effect.
As is often the case with protracted legal action, the case cleared hurdles and suffered setbacks before the Supreme Court agreed to hear its arguments. Any impartial observer would agree that the partnering with the ACLU is a sign of how serious the underlying issues of the case are and the egregious nature of the actions of New York officials.
After all, they are normally not on the same side of major issues.
But ACLU National Legal Director David Cole said it was important for the group to join the effort, despite it undoubtedly being a controversial move among its supporters.
He declared it is “never easy to defend those with whom you disagree…the ACLU has long stood for the proposition that we may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Addressing the New York Times in a statement, Cole explained further. “In this hyper-polarized environment, where few are willing to cross the aisle on anything, the fact that the ACLU is defending the NRA here only underscores the importance of the free speech principle at stake.”
The group clarified that it is not an NRA supporter and disagrees with its mission. But public officials abusing their power “just because they oppose an organization’s political views” must be challenged.
The ACLU charged that if the high court does not rule against New York, it would result in a “dangerous playbook” for U.S. regulatory agencies. Authorities would be free to target and punish abortion rights groups, environmental groups, and even itself.
“The questions at the core of this case are about the First Amendment and the principled defense of civil liberties for all, including those with whom we disagree on the Second Amendment.”
There is already internal dissension in the civil rights group over its decision to defend the NRA before the high court. The affiliated New York Civil Liberties Union declared it “strongly disagrees” with the decision and will not participate.
This despite the case originating in its home state.
