Supreme Court hears NRA free speech case against New York official

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it would decide whether a New York state official violated the First Amendment by encouraging companies to stop doing business with the National Rifle Association after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

The question of when government advocacy crosses a constitutional line and becomes coercion is already before the courts in another case. That concerns the Biden administration’s contacts with social media companies to encourage them to push what the administration considers disinformation on topics such as the coronavirus pandemic and the 2020 election.

The new case, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, No. 22-842, concerns the activities of Maria Vullo, a former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services. In the wake of the Parkland school shooting, Ms. Vullo said banks and insurance companies should consider whether to provide services to the group.

The NRA sued, saying Ms. Vullo’s efforts strengthened government power in a way that violated the First Amendment.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, ruled against the NRA Judge Denny Chinwriting for the panel, acknowledged that government officials “may not use their regulatory powers to coerce individuals or entities to refrain from protected speech.

“But at the same time,” he wrote, “public officials have the right – and even the obligation – to address issues of public interest.”

Ms. Vullo’s actions were on the right side of the constitutional line, Judge Chin wrote. Key documents, he said, “were written in an even-handed, non-threatening tone and used words intended to persuade rather than intimidate.”

In his request for review by the Supreme CourtAccording to the NRA, the appeals court’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences.

“The Second Circuit opinion below gives government officials free rein to financially blacklist their political opponents — from gun rights groups to abortion rights groups to environmentalists and more,” the petition said.

In answerMs. Vullo’s lawyers wrote that “the ability to express an opinion on important public policy issues is critical to the work of many government officials.”

The letter added that Ms. Vullo “has not violated the First Amendment by expressing her views on a national tragedy and by encouraging regulated entities to reconsider their relationships with gun promotion organizations.”