The Supreme Court Will Hear First Amendment Case Alleging That New York Pressured Companies To End Business With the NRA

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case brought forward by the National Rifle Association (NRA), claiming that the New York government used coercion to pressure companies into severing ties with, and debanking, the NRA. The allegation raises questions about government overreach and brings crucial aspects of free speech and censorship into the spotlight. Notably, the case, named NRA v. Vullo, has all of the common themes of assumed government intimidation aimed at stifling speech. A central argument in the NRA’s case is that Maria Vullo, the Chief of New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS), used tactics akin to those in Bantam Books v. Sullivan to intimidate banks and insurance firms into discontinuing their association with the NRA. These allegedly include backchannel threats, veiled guidance communications, and biased enforcement of regulatory violations. The NRA contends that the reasons behind this are rooted in their advocacy of Second Amendment rights, discouraging financial institutions from doing business with them, and citing a reputation risk. Given this, the crucial question that hinges on the First Amendment being considered by the court is: Can a government regulator threaten entities with adverse regulatory action, either because of the government’s antipathy towards the speaker’s viewpoint or a perceived backlash against the speaker’s advocacy? Filing on behalf of the NRA, advocates including William Brewer, Sarah Rogers, Noah Peters, and others have argued that the Second Circuit’s ruling allows state…The Supreme Court Will Hear First Amendment Case Alleging That New York Pressured Companies To End Business With the NRA