![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/supremecourtbuilding1800.png-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Supremes handed a nice victory to the NRA last week. Not uncommon, right? This one was – a UNANIMOUS decision. Authored by Justice Sotomayor.\u00a0 Supported by the ACLU. With a combination like that on your side, you can bet the other folks were trying on some egregious shit, man.<\/p>\n
Oh. look. it was the state of New York. Where have we heard of their legal system lately?<\/p>\n
In a unanimous decision written by\u00a0Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the high court “holds 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\u2019s advocacy.”<\/p>\n
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\u00a0a controversial speaker, allegedly because of the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint, violates the First Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Essentially, Vullo pressured banks and insurance entities to stop doing business with the NRA, or face the wrath of New York regulators.<\/p>\n
“Nice place ya have here….be a pity if something happens to it.”<\/p>\n
“Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity\u2019s \u2018threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion\u2019 against a third party \u2018to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment,” the opinion states.<\/p>\n
“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,” it said. “Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”<\/p>\n
The NRA sued Vullo, who \u2014 at the order of former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo \u2014 allegedly blacklisted the NRA, effectively forcing banks and insurers to cut ties with the group.<\/p>\n
She sent “guidance letters” in 2018 to banks and insurance companies encouraging them to sever ties with the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations, citing reputational risks. The guidance letters were issued shortly after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 students and staff.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit alleged that Vullo made “backroom threats” against regulated firms, accompanied by offers of leniency on unrelated infractions if regulated entities would agree to blacklist the NRA.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So “you got problems…we can make your problems go away if you work with us.”<\/p>\n
“Today\u2019s decision confirms that government officials have no business using their regulatory authority to blacklist disfavored political groups,” \u00a0said David Cole, the ACLU\u2019s national legal director, who argued the case for the NRA. \u00a0Fox News<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The case now heads back to the 2nd Circuit to determine if Vullo is shielded from prosecution on qualified immunity grounds. In a just world,\u00a0 one would think any qualified immunity she had would have gone out the window when she started her very own little protection racket. Now? Remains to be seen – she is a New York Democrat.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"