On Friday, justices agreed to accept National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo for review.
While there are certainly Second Amendment elements to the litigation, it is the constitutional free speech guarantee of the First Amendment that will be in the spotlight before nine robed justices.
And though the outcome is far from certain, what is certain is that this case will be closely watched by the legal community and civil liberties advocates. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre noted the importance of this potentially landmark showdown.
“This is a historic step forward for free speech, the NRA’s millions of members, and for all who believe in freedom,” he declared. “The NRA’s fight for justice continues — this time in the highest court in the land. At a time when free speech is under attack as never before, it is important that government officials be sent a message that they cannot use intimidation tactics to silence those with whom they disagree.”
Make no mistake, intimidation tactics and free speech are at the heart of this case.
The NRA filed suit in May 2018 against the now-former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services. The organization asserted that Maria Vullo, carrying out the wishes of former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), used the state’s power to “financially blacklist” the gun rights organization.
Using her high-profile position, the NRA accused Vullo of pressuring banks and insurance providers to sever their ties with the national group. This, of course, would lead to extreme difficulties conducting business and have a chilling effect on its Second Amendment advocacy — exactly what the state administration intended.
NRA attorneys presented evidence that Vullo utilized guidance letters, backroom threats and other heavy-handed tactics to silence the organization’s free speech.
The Empire State, of course, struck back. Multiple attempts to have the case thrown out of court failed. But last year, after Vullo appealed the trial court’s decision, the Second Circuit rejected the NRA’s argument.
Amazingly, the court cited the current period of “enhanced corporate social responsibility” as its reasoning for backing the state overreach. It claimed that in her position, Vullo was justified to warn institutions that conducting business with the NRA and other blacklisted organizations would lead to “social backlash.”
All of this was inked on her government letterhead under the color of authority. Yet New York attorneys attempted to prove that Vullo was merely expressing her political leanings and not using the power of her office to suppress legal activities.
Remember, her job was to regulate these institutions within the state.
Last February, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court’s ruling. In a clear victory for civil liberties and against government overreach, the bench granted review.
The question which will be considered is nothing less than the breadth and scope of the First Amendment. Is it constitutional for a government regulator to threaten institutions under its power with adverse consequences if they conduct business with a particular entity.
Specifically, if the regulatory agency’s actions are due to “the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or a perceived ‘general backlash’ against the speaker’s advocacy?”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which occupies the far opposite end of the political spectrum from the NRA, threw its support behind the lawsuit.
The group asserted that if the NRA’s case fails, it “would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Public officials would have a ready-made playbook for abusing their regulatory power to harm disfavored advocacy groups without triggering judicial scrutiny.”
It is no small wonder that this critical case is under close observation. The NRA once again is standing up for the rights of all law-abiding American citizens and organizations, and a victory before the Supreme Court is critical.
