老澳门开奖结果

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 today argued before the Supreme Court in National Rifle Association v. Vullo that a New York State regulator鈥檚 attempt to use her authority to coerce third parties to deny the NRA access to financial services violates the First Amendment.

The 老澳门开奖结果 argued that Maria Vullo, a former New York state regulator, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the NRA and, in Vullo鈥檚 own words, 鈥渙ther gun promotion鈥� groups. After issuing these threats, several insurance companies and banks refused to work with the NRA out of fear of reprisals from New York regulators.

鈥淣ew York State鈥檚 attempt to abuse its regulatory power to coerce banks and insurance companies to blacklist the NRA because of its advocacy violates the First Amendment, just as punishing the group directly for its 鈥榞un promotion鈥� views would,鈥� said 老澳门开奖结果 Legal Director David Cole, who argued the case for the NRA. 鈥淚f New York can do this to the NRA, Texas or Florida could use the same tactics against groups advocating immigrants鈥� rights, the right to abortion, or other vital civil liberties.鈥�

The 老澳门开奖结果 disagrees sharply with the NRA on many issues, yet we represented the group in this case because of the First Amendment principles at stake. This case sets an important precedent for the free speech rights of all advocacy organizations. While government officials are free to speak their mind, the First Amendment bars them from abusing their authority to pressure others to penalize speech based on its viewpoint. There can be no doubt that Vullo鈥檚 actions sought to punish the NRA because she disagreed with its protected speech. Should the state prevail against the NRA, government officials will have unfettered power to regulate any organization until it can no longer pursue its mission.

The 老澳门开奖结果 urged the Supreme Court to apply the precedent it set in 1963 in Bantam Books v. Sullivan, which established that informal, indirect efforts to suppress or penalize speech by threatening private intermediaries violates the First Amendment just as much as direct censorship. By upholding the protections created in Bantam Books more than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court will safeguard all advocacy groups from government overreach.