Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU) – Reason
From Justice Sotomayor's opinion today in NRA v. Vullo (the NRA was represented by the ACLU, with David Cole arguing before the Court; by William Brewer, Sarah Rogers & Noah Peters of Brewer Attorneys & Counselors; and by me):
[B.] In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), this Court explored the distinction between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce. There, a state commission used its power to investigate and recommend criminal prosecution to censor publications that, in its view, were "'objectionable'" because they threatened "youthful morals."
The commission sent official notices to a distributor for blacklisted publications that highlighted the commission's "duty to recommend to the Attorney General" violations of the State's obscenity laws. The notices also informed the distributor that the lists of blacklisted publications "were circulated to local police departments," and that the distributor's cooperation in removing the publications from the shelves would "'eliminate the necessity'" of any referral for prosecution. A local police officer also conducted followup visits to ensure compliance. In response, the distributor took "steps to stop further circulation of copies of the listed publications" out of fear of facing "'a court action.'"
The publishers of the blacklisted publications sued the commission, alleging that this scheme of informal censorship violated their First Amendment rights. The commission responded that "it d[id] not regulate or suppress obscenity but simply exhort[ed] booksellers and advise[d] them of their legal rights." This Court sided with the publishers, holding that the commission violated their free-speech rights by coercing the distributor to stop selling and displaying the listed publications.
The Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression" of disfavored speech. Although the commission lacked the "power to apply formal legal sanctions," the distributor "reasonably understood" the commission to threaten adverse action, and thus the distributor's "compliance with the [c]ommission's directives was not voluntary." To reach this conclusion, the Court considered things like: the commission's coordination with law enforcement and its authority to refer matters for prosecution; the notices themselves, which were "phrased virtually as orders" containing "thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings" if the distributor did not come around; and the distributor's reaction to the notices and followup visits.
Ultimately, Bantam Books stands for the principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.
[C.] To state a claim that the government violated the First Amendment through coercion of a third party, a plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff 's speech. Accepting the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities into disassociating with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy.
Consider first Vullo's authority, which serves as a backdrop to the NRA's allegations of coercion. The power that a government official wields, while certainly not dispositive, is relevant to the objective inquiry of whether a reasonable person would perceive the official's communication as coercive. As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York. Just like the commission in Bantam Books, Vullo could initiate investigations and refer cases for prosecution. Indeed, she could do much more than that. Vullo also had the power to notice civil charges and, as this case shows, enter into consent decrees that impose significant monetary penalties.
Against this backdrop, consider Vullo's communications with the DFS-regulated entities, particularly with Lloyd's. According to the NRA, Vullo brought a variety of insurance-law violations to the Lloyd's executives' attention during a private meeting in February 2018. The violations included technical infractions that allegedly plagued the affinity insurance market in New York and that were unrelated to any NRA business.
Vullo allegedly said she would be "less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions so long as Lloyd's ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA." Vullo therefore wanted Lloyd's to disassociate from all gun groups, although there was no indication that such groups had unlawful insurance policies similar to the NRA's.
Vullo also told the Lloyd's executives she would "focus" her enforcement actions "solely" on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, "and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies." The message was therefore loud and clear: Lloyd's "could avoid liability for [unrelated] infractions" if it "aided DFS's campaign against gun groups" by terminating its business relationships with them.
As alleged, Vullo's communications with Lloyd's can be reasonably understood as a threat or as an inducement. Either of those can be coercive. As Vullo concedes, the "threat need not be explicit," and as the Solicitor General explains, "[t]he Constitution does not distinguish between 'comply or I'll prosecute' and 'comply and I'll look the other way.'" Vullo allegedly coerced Lloyd's by saying she would ignore unrelated infractions and focus her enforcement efforts on NRA-related business alone, if Lloyd's ceased underwriting NRA policies and disassociated from gun-promotion groups.
The reaction from Lloyd's further confirms the communications' coercive nature. At the meeting itself, Lloyd's "agreed that it would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business." Minutes from a subsequent board of directors' meeting reveal that Lloyd's thought "the DFS investigation had transformed the gun issue into 'a regulatory, legal[,] and compliance matter.'" That reaction is consistent with Lloyd's public announcement that it had directed its syndicates to "terminate all insurance related to the NRA and not to provide any insurance to the NRA in the future."
Other allegations, viewed in context, reinforce the NRA's First Amendment claim. Consider the April 2018 Guidance Letters and accompanying press release, which Vullo issued on official letterhead. Just like in her meeting with the Lloyd's executives, here too Vullo singled out the NRA and other gun-promotion organizations as the targets of her call to action.
This time, the Guidance Letters reminded DFS-regulated entities of their obligation to consider their "reputational risks," and then tied that obligation to an encouragement for "prompt actio[n] to manag[e] these risks." Evocative of Vullo's private conversation with the Lloyd's executives a few weeks earlier, the press release revealed how to manage the risks by encouraging DFS-regulated entities to "'discontinu[e] their arrangements with the NRA,'" just like Chubb did when it stopped underwriting Carry Guard. A follow-on tweet from Cuomo reaffirmed the message: Businesses in New York should "'consider their reputations'" and "'revisit any ties they have to the NRA,'" which he called "'an extremist organization.'"
[T]his Court cannot simply credit Vullo's assertion that "pursuing conceded violations of the law" is an "'obvious alternative explanation'" for her actions that defeats the plausibility of any coercive threat raising First Amendment concerns. Of course, discovery in this case might show that the allegations of coercion are false, or that certain actions should be understood differently in light of newly disclosed evidence. At this stage, though, the Court must assume the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are true.
{Vullo also argues that she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for her enforcement actions. Putting aside whether a financial regulator like Vullo is entitled to such immunity in the administrative context, because Vullo did not raise this defense below with respect to the First Amendment claim (or even with respect to allegations unrelated to the consent decrees), the Court declines to consider that argument here in the first instance.}
[D.] Moreover, the conceded illegality of the NRA-endorsed insurance programs does not insulate Vullo from First Amendment scrutiny under the Bantam Books framework. Indeed, the commission in that case targeted the distribution and display of material that, in its view, violated the State's obscenity laws. Nothing in that case turned on the distributor's compliance with state law. On the contrary, Bantam Books held that the commission violated the First Amendment by invoking legal sanctions to suppress disfavored publications, some of which may or may not contain protected speech (i.e., nonobscene material).
Here, too, although Vullo can pursue violations of state insurance law, she cannot do so in order to punish or suppress the NRA's protected expression. So, the contention that the NRA and the insurers violated New York law does not excuse Vullo from allegedly employing coercive threats to stifle gun-promotion advocacy.
[E.] That Vullo "regulate[d]" business activities stemming from the NRA's "relationships with insurers and banks" does not change the allegations that her actions were aimed at punishing or suppressing speech. One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control. Vullo knew, after all, that the NRA relied on insurance and financing "to disseminate its message." {Vullo's boss, Governor Cuomo, also urged businesses to disassociate with the NRA to put the organization "into financial jeopardy" and "shut them down."}
The NRA's allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of intermediary strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted to target the NRA's advocacy. Such a strategy allows government officials to "expand their regulatory jurisdiction to suppress the speech of organizations that they have no direct control over." It also allows government officials to be more effective in their speech-suppression efforts "[b]ecause intermediaries will often be less invested in the speaker's message and thus less likely to risk the regulator's ire."
The allegations here bear this out. Although "the NRA was not even the directly regulated party," Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA's business partners. Insurers in turn followed Vullo's lead, fearing regulatory hostility.
[F.] [N]othing here prevents government officials from forcefully condemning views with which they disagree. For those permissible actions, the Constitution "relies first and foremost on the ballot box, not on rules against viewpoint discrimination, to check the government when it speaks." Yet where, as here, a government official makes coercive threats in a private meeting behind closed doors, the "ballot box" is an especially poor check on that official's authority. Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.
Justice Gorsuch filed a one-paragraph concurrence concluding that courts should focus on deciding whether the plaintiff has "plausibly allege[d] conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff 's speech," rather than trying to articulate any multifactor tests (as some lower courts have done in this area) elaborating on this core question.
Justice Jackson also concurred, highlighting the fact that some government coercion can directly stifle speech (for instance, when the government is coercing bookstores not to carry a book) while other coercion retaliates against protected speech (for instance, when the government is coercing financial intermediaries not to do business with speakers). Both may violate the First Amendment, but, she argued, they should be analyzed somewhat differently; read her opinion (PDF pp. 26-31) for more details.
More here:
Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU) - Reason
- Most Americans can name only one right protected by the First Amendment, Annenberg survey finds - The Daily Pennsylvanian - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- A Majority of Americans Cant Recall Most First Amendment Rights - The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Can you list all the First Amendment rights? Only 7% of Americans can, poll finds - Miami Herald - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Todays TikTok Appeal Pressure Tests The First Amendment - Forrester - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Heres what to know about free speech protections outlined by the First Amendment - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- DC Circuit skeptical of TikToks First Amendment effort to stave off looming ban - Courthouse News Service - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Can candidates lie & get away with it? See if First Amendment rules vary for GA elections - Columbus Ledger-Enquirer - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- McConnell On The Judicial Bureaucracy And The First Amendment - Remark | Remarks | THE NEWSROOM | Republican Leader - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Mistreatment of Indian journalist in Texas may have violated First Amendment rights: NPC - Daily Excelsior - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Says Pro-Hamas Groups Threats Are Protected by First Amendment - Algemeiner - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- State of the First Amendment Address to focus on free speech, free exercise and the establishment clause - UK College of Communication and Information - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- Letter to the Editor: Defending our First Amendment rights - Daily Bulldog - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- Opinion | Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech - The New York Times - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- The Growing Threat of State Domestic Terrorism Laws to the First Amendment - Just Security - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- First Amendment or foreign interference? Jury to decide in federal trial of Uhuru members - WTSP.com - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- State of the First Amendment Address to focus on free speech, free exercise and the establishment clause - UKNow - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Interpreting the First Amendment through an equality lens - University of Miami: News@theU - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Andrew Walker: The importance of the First Amendment - WORLD News Group - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Daily Herald opinion: Free speech and election politics: Chilling-sounding 'First Amendment Zones' pose a legitimate, not insurmountable, challenge... - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Phil Donahue: The man who brought robust talk to TV an interview with Ken Paulson about the man and his legacy First Amendment News 438 - Foundation... - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Private Universities That Reject First Amendment Principles Put Themselves At Legal Risk (Updated) - Reason - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Federal Judge Who Ruled Ald. Gardiner Violated First Amendment Admonishes Him for Approaching Her - WTTW News - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Law professors: Northwestern University must embrace the First Amendment standard of speech - Chicago Tribune - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Trump Says We Gotta Restrict the First Amendment - Rolling Stone - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Constitution Day speaker to discuss the First Amendment, 2024 Election - Fredonia.edu - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Does the First Amendment Protect A.I.? The Supreme Court May Soon Have Its Say. - Slate - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment and practical implications of SEA 202 - Indiana Lawyer - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Arizona Woman Arrested for Exercising First Amendment Rights, Criticizing Public Official - Turning Point USA - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- First Amendment / Second Amendment Lawyer Jobs in California - Reason - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- Nashville mayor introduces legislation aimed at safety and protecting First Amendment rights - WSMV 4 - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- A few reflections on the Benjamin Gitlow story as that landmark case nears its centennial anniversary First Amendment News 436 - Foundation for... - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- 72 People Have Been Arrested Related to First Amendment Activities During the DNC, Including 3 Journalists - WTTW News - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- 72 People Have Been Arrested Related to First Amendment Activities During the DNC, Including 3 Journalists WTTW (Chicago) - Wirepoints - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- Europes outrageous attack on the First Amendment - Washington Examiner - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Who's for the First Amendment and who's against - Martinsburg Journal - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Catholic Charities asks Supreme Court to protect First Amendment rights in battle against the state - AOL - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Five ways the First Amendment protects your speech and three ways it does not - ACLU of DC - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Video Democrats can handle protests and protecting the First Amendment: Brandon Johnson - ABC News - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- University I-Team launched, tasked with supporting First Amendment rights - Daily Illini - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- TikTok fights the DOJ on the First Amendment, compares itself to these American news outlets - Fast Company - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Whose Bible (and First Amendment) is it, anyway? | Opinion - NJ.com - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Anti-abortion organizations claim N.Y. attorney general is violating First Amendment over info on treatment - Spectrum News - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- In Response to City-Promoted Religious Walk: First Amendment Activist Proposes 'Chicken Wings, Piatas, and a Satanic Rave' - Tamarac Talk - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- A First Amendment fight for the future of the internet - The Boston Globe - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Pushing back against the state - WORLD News Group - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- So to Speak Podcast Transcript: The First Amendment at the Supreme Court - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Ruling boosts social media free speech protections, some say - Roll Call - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Can the First Amendment Protect Americans From Government Censorship? - The New York Sun - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- The aftermath of the Supreme Courts NetChoice ruling - The Verge - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling 'inconsistent' with First Amendment - ADF Media - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Gag orders and First Amendment rights - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Car shows, the First Amendment, and $30 - The Citizen.com - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- ACLU lawsuit claims Rose Bud ordinance restricts First Amendment rights - KARK - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- DOJ report on Phoenix PD contains guidance on First Amendment rights at protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Chicago Police Department Revises Plan to Handle Protests Around DNC After Reform Groups Object - WTTW News - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Is Promotion of Free Services "Commercial Speech" for First Amendment Purposes? - Reason - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Opinion | Alito comments threaten the First Amendment - The Washington Post - The Washington Post - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Six West Virginia Schools Notified of First Amendment Violations in Student Handbooks - WV News - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Missouri AG joins 23 states to defend Trump's First Amendment rights - kttn - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Voting assistance covered by First Amendment, say plaintiffs in absentee ballot case Alabama Reflector - Alabama Reflector - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- ACLU Urges Six WV Schools to Review Student Policies Violating First Amendment - The 74 - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Do Anti-CRT Laws Violate the First Amendment? - Vanderbilt Law - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Book Review: The Indispensable Right, by Jonathan Turley - The New York Times - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Perspectives: Tale of two Cohens: promissory and profane - Minnesota Lawyer - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- SPJ urges Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn lower court order that threatens journalists' First Amendment rights - Society of Professional... - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Anti-Semitism and the First Amendment | | khq.com - KHQ Right Now - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Personal Reflections: First Amendment and Religious Freedom | Opinion and Editorials | Lewiston Tribune | lmtribune ... - Lewiston Morning Tribune - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Fort Worth City Reinforces First Amendment Rights with True Texas Project Event Reinstatement at Botanic Garden - Hoodline - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Supreme Court Clears Way for N.R.A. to Pursue First Amendment Challenge - The New York Times - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- SCOTUS unanimously backs NRA on First Amendment ruling - JURIST - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Supreme Court Says Government Bullying Can Violate the First Amendment - Goldwater Institute - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- SCOTUS Unanimously Sides With NRA in First Amendment Case - The Reload - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Supreme Court unanimously sides with NRA in First Amendment dispute with New York official - Washington Times - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Why Justice Sotomayor just handed the NRA a big Supreme Court victory - Vox.com - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- John Stockton Loses Case Over Regulation of COVID Speech - Sportico - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- More on the New York Trump Case and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Campus encampment bans rarely violate the First Amendment. Here's why. - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Trump's Trial and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Are gag orders constitutional? SCOTUS says it depends - VERIFYThis.com - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Has a First Amendment Right to Pay Hush Money to Support his Electoral Ambitions - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]