<
div data-editable=”content” itemprop=”articleBody” data-reorderable=”content”>
<cite class="source__cite">
<span class="source__location" data-editable="location"/>
<span class="source__text" data-editable="source">CNN</span>
 —Â
</cite>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtak466000l5mqg29awh5nk@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
The Supreme Court unanimously supported the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that could hinder state regulators' ability to pressure advocacy groups.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtc0e1z000g3b6j04phsomb@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
The ruling allows the NRA to proceed with its lawsuit against a former New York official who encouraged banks and insurance companies to sever ties with the organization after the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school shooting that resulted in 17 fatalities.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtcxssi0001356ju0ues8di@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, speaking for the court, stated that government officials cannot use coercion to punish or suppress viewpoints they disagree with.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtc4lva000t3b6jddnleu43@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
Sotomayor emphasized that the First Amendment prohibits officials from selectively using their power to suppress speech.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtc6aep000v3b6j0h2revwi@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
The NRA accused Maria Vullo, a former superintendent at the New York State Department of Financial Services, of pressuring insurance companies and threatening enforcement actions if they did not comply with cutting ties with the NRA.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtc6auz000x3b6jhtnrswmv@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
The dispute centered around a 2018 meeting where Vullo allegedly incentivized Lloyd’s of London to join the campaign against gun groups. Vullo downplayed the significance of the meeting, arguing that the NRA's allegations were vague.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtc6auz000y3b6jzdkpe85y@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
Vullo, under Governor Andrew Cuomo, claimed her enforcement targeted illegal insurance policies associated with the NRA, commonly labeled as "murder insurance."
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtc6auz000z3b6joqsiirqp@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
The ruling brings clarity to government regulators on the boundaries of pressuring private companies engaged with controversial advocacy groups.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtgc25v00003b6jj2gbjp47@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
NRA's lawyer, William A. Brewer III, hailed the ruling as a significant moment for First Amendment rights, criticizing New York officials for using their power to stifle political opposition.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtfaq4z00003b6j8gzgwt7y@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
An attorney for Vullo expressed disappointment in the decision and hoped that a lower court, previously in her favor on another legal basis, may support her stance.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtfc4p000023b6jq4o7sldt@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
Another attorney, Neal Katyal, representing Vullo, defended her actions as enforcing laws against insurance violations and typical regulatory measures to communicate risks to overseen entities.
</p>
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph-primary-core-light" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/clwtd3c0n0003356jyi0nka56@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the court's decision from conservative and liberal standpoints.
</p>In her concurrence spanning six pages, Jackson emphasized the critical role of the facts in cases like the current one.
Jackson emphasized that the violation of First Amendment rights through government coercion of a third party depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Different scenarios involving who is being coerced and for what reason may trigger distinct First Amendment investigations.
The court’s opinion did not reference another related case about the Biden administration’s alleged overreach in pressuring social media platforms such as X and Facebook to remove content categorized as misinformation.
Both cases were argued on the same day in March.
The NRA, known for making Second Amendment arguments at the Supreme Court, found unusual allies in their First Amendment claim. The American Civil Liberties Union, which typically opposes the NRA in gun-related debates, agreed to represent the NRA before the Supreme Court.
A US district court dismissed some of the NRA’s claims but allowed the First Amendment arguments against Vullo to proceed. However, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, determining that Vullo’s actions were not coercive and granted him qualified immunity.
Relying heavily on a 1963 Supreme Court decision, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the NRA argued its case. This decision involved a Rhode Island commission that had threatened distributors with police action if they sold books deemed obscene, with the Supreme Court deeming such “informal censorship” unconstitutional.
This story has been updated with new information.
