The Supreme Court Monday weighed a novel First Amendment case involving a former New York state official. 

The National Rifle Association accuses the former head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, Maria Vullo, of violating the First Amendment by pressuring banks and insurance companies to blacklist the NRA over its gun-rights views after the deadly mass shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Central to the case is the question of where the line is drawn between governmental advocacy versus coercion. 

What You Need To Know

  • The NRA accuses the former head of New York’s Department of Financial Services of violating the First Amendment by pressuring banks and insurance companies to blacklist the NRA over its gun-rights views

  • The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Cole, who argued on the NRA’s behalf, said there was a “campaign by the state's highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy”

  • The lawyer for the former New York official said the insurance companies were offering a product that was illegal in New York and she was enforcing the law
  • Central to the case is the question of where the line is drawn between governmental advocacy versus coercion 

In a case of odd bedfellows, the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union represented the right-leaning NRA. 

The ACLU’s David Cole, who argued on the NRA’s behalf, said there was a “campaign by the state's highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy.”

Vullo’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, said the insurance companies were offering a product that was illegal in New York and she was enforcing the law.

The NRA, Katyal said, was “seeking to weaponize the First Amendment and exempt themselves from the rules that govern you and me simply because they're a controversial speaker.”

Back in 2018 following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Vullo publicly called on banks and insurance companies to consider the reputational risks tied to doing business with gun groups. 

However, it was a meeting Vullo had with insurance company Lloyd’s of London that was a focus of Monday’s hearing. The NRA claims that Vullo suggested she would go easy on some regulatory infractions if the gigantic insurer stopped working with the NRA - an allegation Vullo disputes. 

During the arguments, conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked, “Does that mean that, really, the New York officials could have achieved what they wanted to achieve if they hadn't done it in such a ham-handed manner?”

The court’s decision in this case is expected by early summer.