Supreme Court Sides with NRA, Upholding First Amendment Rights in Blacklisting Case

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has plausibly alleged that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated its First Amendment rights by blacklisting the group. The Court's decision allows the NRA to continue to argue its case in lower courts.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has plausibly alleged that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated its First Amendment rights by blacklisting the group. The Court's decision allows the NRA to continue to argue its case in lower courts.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the NRA in 2018 which questioned whether a government regulator threatens regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, allegedly because of the government's own hostility to the speaker's viewpoint, violates the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who stated that "the NRA plausibly alleged that [then-New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T.] Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's advocacy."

The Court's decision overrules the Second Circuit's dismissal of the suit, which had argued that Vullo's actions were reasonable. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Second Circuit for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The NRA has garnered support from unlikely allies in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a group that ideologically opposes the NRA but said it is "proud" to defend the gun group's "right to speak."

David Cole, the ACLU's national legal director, who argued the case for the NRA, said, "Today's decision confirms that government officials have no business using their regulatory authority to blacklist disfavored political groups."

Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells, counsel for Vullo, said, "We are disappointed by the Court's decision. As the Court’s decision makes clear, because of the posture of this case, this ruling required the Court to treat the NRA’s untested allegations as true even though these allegations have no evidentiary merit."

Katyal added, "This case will now go back to the Second Circuit, which threw out the lawsuit on qualified immunity grounds before. The Supreme Court did not address the qualified immunity decision of the Second Circuit, and we are confident Ms. Vullo’s claim of qualified immunity will be reaffirmed."

The Supreme Court's decision is a significant victory for the NRA and for First Amendment rights in general. It sends a clear message that government officials cannot use their authority to suppress disfavored speech.

The case is expected to have a ripple effect on other cases involving government regulation of speech. It is likely to be cited by plaintiffs in cases challenging laws that restrict political speech or that allow government officials to punish individuals or groups for expressing unpopular views.