Gun Rights Group Claims Lower Court Decision ‘Defies’ Major First Amendment Victory At SCOTUS

After scoring a major First Amendment victory at the Supreme Court, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is returning to the justices with a request to reverse a lower court ruling they claim “defies” the landmark decision.

The Supreme Court allowed the NRA’s First Amendment claim to move forward last year, finding the group “plausibly alleged” former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria Vullo violated their rights by pressuring banks and insurance companies not to do business with them.

Yet the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in July that Vullo should not face legal consequences because her actions did not violate a right that was “clearly established” at the time.

“Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity, for the law was not clearly established that the conduct alleged here — regulatory action directed at the nonexpressive conduct of third parties — constituted coercion or retaliation violative of the First Amendment,” the Second Circuit held in July.

In a footnote, the Supreme Court’s opinion noted the Second Circuit remained “free to reconsider whether Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity.”

“Now these government officials are arguing they cannot be held accountable, claiming their status entitles them to ‘qualified immunity,’” NRA CEO Doug Hamlin said in a statement. “The NRA has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court let them know that there can be consequences for leveraging power to harm those who disagree with their policies.”

The NRA initially sued Vullo in 2018 over what they said was a “campaign of selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats.”

“Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the court’s 2024 opinion. “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. ”

The Second Circuit’s ruling “conflicts with precedents from this Court and other circuits on the limits of qualified immunity,” the NRA argues in its petition.

“This Court should grant review to clarify that qualified immunity does not shield obvious violations like this one, where the only factual distinctions in play are irrelevant under the clear constitutional rule established by precedent,” the NRA wrote. “Alternatively, this Court should summarily reverse to enforce its prior decision.”

“We are confident in the correctness of the Second Circuit’s dismissal of this baseless case, which was based on false allegations,” a spokesperson for Vullo told the DCNF.