Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
Table of contents
Unprecedented Ruling Against New York’s Blacklisting Efforts
Today marks a monumental win for the National Rifle Association (NRA) as the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in one of the nation’s most closely watched First Amendment cases.
The court decisively favored the NRA in its legal battle against former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo, denouncing New York’s attempts to marginalize the organization.
Court Decision Revives NRA’s Claims
The Supreme Court’s ruling not only sides with the NRA but also sends their case back to the lower court, giving new life to the NRA’s allegations.
These include claims that Vullo, under former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s direction, infringed on the NRA’s First Amendment rights by urging financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA in 2018.
NRA Leaders Herald the Victory
“The decision underscores the importance of this principled fight. When it comes to defending our members and their freedoms, the NRA will never back down.” – NRA EVP & CEO Doug Hamlin
— NRA (@NRA) May 30, 2024
NRA President Bob Barr hailed the decision as a victory for freedom and a clear message against government overreach.
“This is a historic moment for the NRA in its stand against governmental overreach. Let this be clear: the voice of the NRA membership is as loud and influential as ever,” Barr stated.
“Regulators are now on notice: this is a win for not only the NRA, but every organization who might otherwise suffer from an abuse of government power,” he added.
Similarly, NRA EVP & CEO Doug Hamlin emphasized the importance of the fight.
“The decision underscores the importance of this principled fight. When it comes to defending our members and their freedoms, the NRA will never back down,” said Hamlin.
Details of the Supreme Court’s Opinion
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion, reaffirming long-standing protections against government suppression of speech.
She pointed out that the government cannot use coercion to suppress views it dislikes.
According to the court, Vullo’s actions to disconnect the NRA from banking and insurance services clearly targeted the organization’s advocacy efforts under the guise of regulatory guidance.
Sotomayor wrote:
Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored lingo violates the First Amendment… Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.
The Background of the Legal Battle
The conflict began in May 2018 when the NRA filed a lawsuit against Vullo, accusing her and Cuomo of conspiring to blacklist the NRA financially by leveraging the Department of Financial Services’ regulatory power.
Despite the Second Circuit initially dismissing the NRA’s claims in 2022, the Supreme Court’s latest decision revitalizes the NRA’s fight.
Wide Support for the NRA’s Stand
The case has attracted significant attention, with more than 190 individuals and organizations backing the NRA through twenty-two amicus briefs.
Support spans a broad political spectrum, including prominent First Amendment scholars, congressional Republicans, the ACLU and 25 state attorneys general.
Looking Forward
As the case returns to the lower courts, the NRA remains optimistic about the ultimate affirmation of their First Amendment rights, continuing their longstanding advocacy for gun rights unabated by political opposition.
This Supreme Court decision not only represents a victory for the NRA but also reinforces the constitutional protections afforded to all advocacy organizations against governmental overreach.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
About time this cheezy organization finally got off its bloated ass and did something real, in furtherance of its stated goals instead of always sending out expensive mailers to beg for more money from its trusting members. That Wayne and his buddies have almost totally ruined the credibility of such a storied corporation.
Yaaaaay!
overthrow the Democrats. You can’t vote dictators out of office
“You can vote your way into fascism but your grandchildren will have to shoot their way out of it.”
Yes, they one this round, but NY and others will learn from the mistakes SCOTUS pointed out and will try again. The ultimate problem to this relentless attack is that the govt. has unlimited funds, has lawyers full time employed, drawing govt. pay checks, working towards retirement at every level, and can hammer away at us without a care, while those the attack is aimed at, have limited funds they have to expend out of their profits made in sales of goods and services, that will eventually drain them to the bankruptcy level paying legal fees. If this was a civil case between two individuals, the losing party might have to pay the court and lawyer fees of the other side, in this case, the state of NY should be forced to reimburse the NRA for its legal fees, and add an additional monetary penalty on top of it to make it hurt so they will quit this nonsense. In references to my last remark, I will be scanning the sky for flying pigs, because that would coincide with my last remark coming true.
“NRA President Bob Barr…”
It’s just nice to no longer see the other guy’s name after that title. Hopefully, the fake POTUS (genuine POS) will also be removed in shame.
Good for the only authored opinion that makes Constitutional sense.
Victory, yes. These bureaucracies will not be stopped by any law, however, and before this case is over they will be back at it. Just like criminals don’t obey gun laws they will ingore this. Without enforceable punishment this is a big waste of time.
A win from the SCOTUS! Hot diggitie dog! Now the NRA has to stay on the gov’ts arse and shut these dims down! Without the 2nd Amendment, there is no First Amendment.
I wish the news was good against all the other fronts…