2024 United States Supreme Court case
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that if Maria T. Vullo, the former director of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), attempted to coerce financial institutions in the state to refrain from doing business with the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), then such conduct would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Background.
Following the Parkland high school shooting, the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria T. Vullo advised banks and insurance companies in the state of New York not to provide services to the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), an organization that lobbies in support of gun rights in the United States. The NRA sued Vullo, alleging a First Amendment violation. A three-judge panel of United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the NRA, affirming a lower court's dismissal of the case. Judge Denny Chin wrote that while government officials may not "use their regulatory powers to coerce individuals or entities into refraining from protected speech… government officials have a right — indeed, a duty — to address issues of public concern."
Supreme Court.
The NRA appealed the Second Circuit's decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 3, 2023. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2024. The NRA was represented by David D. Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Vullo was represented by former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal.
The Court released its opinion on May 30, 2024, vacating the Second Circuit's decision and remanding the case to the lower court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the Court's unanimous decision, favoring the NRA, stating that "Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors." The decision further held that government officials cross the line into impermissible coercion when they engage in conduct “that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech.” Justice Sotomayor explained that, “At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.” 
References.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;
External links.
 is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) Supreme Court (preliminary print) 