NRA Seeks Supreme Court Reversal Following Major First Amendment Case
Following a significant First Amendment win at the Supreme Court, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is petitioning the justices to overturn a decision from a lower court, claiming it contradicts the landmark ruling.
Last year, the Supreme Court allowed the NRA’s claims regarding First Amendment violations to proceed. The Court found that former New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo allegedly infringed on the NRA’s rights by pressuring financial institutions to avoid doing business with them.
However, in July, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Vullo should not be held accountable since his actions didn’t breach any rights that were “clearly established” at that time. The court stated that Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity as it wasn’t clearly defined that such conduct constituted coercion or retaliation against First Amendment rights.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court mentioned in a footnote that the Second Circuit could reconsider whether Vullo qualifies for this immunity.
NRA CEO Doug Hamlin expressed concerns in a statement, saying, “These government officials now argue that their roles grant them ‘qualified immunity’ and they won’t face consequences.” He emphasized that the NRA has submitted a petition asking the Supreme Court to remind everyone that using governmental power to harm those with differing policies has repercussions.
The NRA initially took legal action against Vullo in 2018, citing “selective prosecution, backroom recommendations, and public intimidation.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in the 2024 ruling that a prior Court decision established it as a violation of the First Amendment when government entities threaten legal action or coercive measures against third parties to suppress negative opinions. She reiterated this notion, asserting that government officials cannot coerce private citizens to punish differing views.
In its petition, the NRA argues that the Second Circuit’s ruling is inconsistent with court precedents and the limitations of qualified immunity. They urged the Court to review the case to clarify that violations of this kind, established by precedent, should not be shielded by qualified immunity due to irrelevant factual distinctions. Alternatively, the NRA requested an immediate reversal of the prior judgment.
