SCOTUS: NRA v Vullo - Strange bedfellows (ACLU defending NRA)

[JayDubya]

ACLU to represent NRA in NY free speech challenge​

“The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...t-nra-in-ny-free-speech-challenge/ar-AA1lfVC3

 

[pmbug]

... the ACLU's Legal Director David Cole—an experienced Supreme Court advocate—is (the Times notes) planning on arguing.

The issue in the case is whether New York financial regulatory authorities coerced banks and insurance companies to cut off ties with the NRA and thus violated the First Amendment. ...

NRA and ACLU Teaming up on the First Amendment in NRA v. Vullo

I'm delighted to report (as Adam Liptak wrote in today's New York Times) that the ACLU will be representing the...

reason.com

This is more Operation Choke Point 2.0 in action.

 

[pmbug]

This report has a good overview of the issues in the case:

This NRA Supreme Court case has big implications for porn

The ACLU will represent the gun rights group in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.

reason.com

 

[searcher]

Court sympathetic to NRA’s free speech claim - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared sympathetic to the National Rifle Association’s claim that a New York official violated the group’s right to freedom of speech when she urged banks and insurance companies that worked with the NRA to cut ties with the group. During just over an hour of oral argum

www.scotusblog.com

 

[pmbug]

... We're going to talk about an issue that's gotten a lot of coverage here, National Rifle Association versus Vullo. The reason is, as of this recording yesterday, the 18th of March, was the oral argument for that case, and I attended the oral argument. We're going to talk about what I observed and what it might mean. ...
...

More (long):

FinRegRant #6: Oral Arguments in NRA v. Vullo

Brian Knight’s thoughts on what he saw Monday at the Supreme Court

www.finregrag.com

 

[pmbug]

9-0 NRA win

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[pmbug]

...
But in NRA v. Vullo, the Court ruled unanimously that Vullo's actions as alleged by the NRA had crossed the line from persuasion into coercion. "Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The NRA, she said, "plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that."

The decision sends the case back to the 2nd Circuit, which could still give Vullo qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields government officials from suits like the NRA's if the misconduct alleged has not been "clearly established" in prior case law. That outcome is certainly probable, as the 2nd Circuit's original decision not only ruled that Vullo had not violated the Constitution—which the Supreme Court rejected today—but that even if she had, qualified immunity would insulate her from the NRA's claim.

It is difficult to imagine, however, a more obvious violation of the Constitution than the weaponization of government power to cripple advocacy disfavored by the state. The supposed reason for qualified immunity is that taxpayer-funded civil servants deserve fair notice that conduct is unlawful before a victim can seek recourse for those misdeeds. To argue that a government agent could not be expected to understand the contours of the First Amendment here is rather dire.
...

More:

The NRA's unanimous Supreme Court victory is good for free speech—no matter how you feel about guns

The First Amendment shouldn't be partisan. This decision is good for free speech no matter how much you hate guns.

reason.com

 

[searcher]

Opinion piece.

NRA v. Vullo: A Resounding Win for Free Speech, But Will It Endure?​

The United States Supreme Court issued a major free speech decision expanding the protections for political speech against regulatory intimidation by New York state. But this victory won’t be fully secured until another decision drops.

NRA v. Vullo was a unanimous decision that concluded the NRA properly stated a claim under the First Amendment when it alleged New York insurance regulators threatened to punish insurers who did business with the NRA, including issuing affinity policies to NRA members.

For the Court, Justice Sotomayor began by discussing an earlier free speech case called Bantam Books. In Bantam, the Court held that a Rhode Island obscenity regulator violated the First Amendment rights of book publishers by sending notices to booksellers and distributors that threatened a prosecutorial referral if blacklisted obscene books were not removed from inventory. “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.”

More:

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/nra-v-vullo-a-resounding-win-for-free-speech-but-will-it-endure