老澳门开奖结果

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 today filed a brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in NRA v. Vullo, arguing that government attempts to blacklist a nonprofit advocacy group and deny it financial services because of its viewpoint violate the First Amendment. While the 老澳门开奖结果 stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, it is representing the group to safeguard the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations.

鈥淲hile the 老澳门开奖结果 disagrees with the NRA鈥檚 advocacy, we are proud to defend its right to speak,鈥� said 老澳门开奖结果 Legal Director David Cole, who will argue the case for the NRA. 鈥淧ublic officials cannot be allowed to abuse their regulatory powers to blacklist an organization just because they oppose its political views. If New York is allowed to do this to the NRA, it will provide a playbook for other state officials to abuse their authority to target groups they don鈥檛 like.鈥�

In 2018, the NRA sued Maria Vullo, who was then the superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), after she leveraged 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. Openly claiming that she sought to penalize the NRA because she disapproved of its political advocacy, the NRA鈥檚 complaint alleges that Vullo issued formal guidance to every bank and insurance company in New York urging them to 鈥渟ever ties鈥� with the NRA, promised lenience to certain insurers if they would stop doing business with the NRA, and required the group鈥檚 three principal 鈥渁ffinity insurance鈥� providers never to provide such insurance to the NRA again.

A district court ruled that the NRA's allegations against Vullo were sufficient to claim that she violated the NRA's First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed this ruling, stating that Vullo's actions constitute 鈥済overnment speech.鈥� The Supreme Court will now clarify whether Vullo's actions violate the First Amendment.

In its brief, the 老澳门开奖结果 urges 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 violate 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.