Why Justice Sotomayor just handed the NRA a big Supreme Court victory – Vox.com
The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous victory for the National Rifle Association, the powerful pro-gun organization, on Thursday. Notably, the opinion was authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee and one of the Courts few remaining liberal voices.
Yet nothing about the Courts decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo should surprise anyone. The case involved an egregious and straightforward violation of the First Amendment, and Sotomayors name on the opinion drives home the fact that theres really only one fair-minded way to decide this case.
Vullo arose out of two moves Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of New York States Department of Financial Services (DFS), took against the NRA. One of these moves was entirely lawful, the other was clearly unconstitutional.
The lawful investigation concerned Carry Guard, an insurance program the NRA offered its members, which would pay the legal bills of a customer who shot someone. Carry Guard, which was provided by third-party insurers but promoted by the NRA, violated New York law in two ways. The NRA promoted it without a license, and it insured New York residents for intentional, reckless, and criminally negligent acts with a firearm that injured or killed another person.
For reasons that should be obvious, New York does not permit insurers to offer policies that pay out if the beneficiary commits an intentional criminal act.
While Vullo was pursuing her investigation into the Carry Guard program eventually imposing millions of dollars in fines on the insurance companies that administered and underwrote Carry Guard a gunman murdered 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Florida. This triggered a widespread backlash against the NRA, including within New Yorks government.
Unfortunately, at least part of New Yorks response to the Parkland shooting was unconstitutional.
Vullo issued two guidance letters to insurers and financial services companies, encouraging them to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations and to take prompt actions to manag[e] these risks and promote public health and safety.
Notably, Vullo issued these letters while her office was actively seeking millions of dollars worth of fines from the insurance companies responsible for the NRAs Carry Guard program.
Additionally, Vullo allegedly met with one insurance company, Lloyds of London, and told Lloyds that it could avoid liability for unrelated insurance law violations so long as it aided DFSs campaign against gun groups.
So Vullo encouraged many insurers to cut off ties with the NRA at the very moment that she was pursuing a major investigation into three companies that did business with the NRA. And she allegedly offered to shield one company from additional liability if it took further actions against the gun organization.
As Sotomayors opinion explains, thats not allowed.
Perhaps because the opinion is written by Sotomayor, and not by a more right-wing justice who may be eager to use the state of New Yorks blundering treatment of the NRA as an excuse to shut down legitimate enforcement actions against the gun group, the Courts decision also includes some language ensuring that the investigation into Carry Guard remains valid.
Thus, supporters of gun regulation avoided a crushing defeat in Vullo; this case could have ended in a far more sweeping win for the NRA.
The holding of Sotomayors Vullo opinion is straightforward. Vullo was free to criticize the NRA and pursue the conceded violations of New York insurance law, the justice writes. But, she could not wield her power ... to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRAs gun-promotion advocacy.
Thus, the Court draws a clear line between the legitimate investigations into Carry Guard and the other efforts to pressure companies to cut ties with the NRA because New Yorks leaders disapproved of the organizations gun rights advocacy.
As Sotomayor writes, this conclusion flows naturally from the Supreme Courts decision in Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), which involved a similar effort by a government agency to punish speakers the agency did not like.
Bantam Books concerned the Orwellianly named Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth, a state body that targeted books it deemed objectionable for sale, distribution or display to youths under 18 years of age. The commission sent letters to booksellers asking for their cooperation in removing such books, while also informing these sellers of their duty to recommend to the Attorney General prosecution of purveyors of obscenity.
In at least one case, the commission also sent a police officer to one book distributor it targeted, who asked what steps the distributor had taken to comply with the letter.
Though neither the letter nor the police officer made an explicit threat, such as remove these books or you will be arrested and face criminal charges, Bantam Books concluded that the implicit threat was clear enough, and it held that this sort of coercion violates the First Amendment.
The same logic applies in Vullo. As Sotomayor explains, [A]s DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York. She had the power to bring civil charges and, as DFSs investigation into Carry Guard shows, to impose significant monetary penalties.
Backed by this authority, Vullo encouraged DFS-regulated entities to discontinu[e] their arrangements with the NRA, including arrangements that were entirely lawful.
Thats not allowed. As Sotomayor writes, Vullo is accused of threatening to wield her power against those refusing to aid her campaign to punish the NRAs gun-promotion advocacy. If those allegations are proven (the case is still at an early stage and has not yet received a full trial), Vullo violated the First Amendment.
Its worth noting that Sotomayors opinion is brief and fairly surgical. It makes clear that Vullos unconstitutional actions do not strip DFS of its authority to sanction legitimate violations of New York law, including the NRAs decision to essentially offer murder insurance.
But her opinion also reaffirms one of the most foundational principles in First Amendment law: Even despicable people have the right to free speech.
Youve read 1 article in the last month
Here at Vox, we believe in helping everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help to shape it. Our mission is to create clear, accessible journalism to empower understanding and action.
If you share our vision, please consider supporting our work by becoming a Vox Member. Your support ensures Vox a stable, independent source of funding to underpin our journalism. If you are not ready to become a Member, even small contributions are meaningful in supporting a sustainable model for journalism.
Thank you for being part of our community.
Swati Sharma
Vox Editor-in-Chief
We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via
Read this article:
Why Justice Sotomayor just handed the NRA a big Supreme Court victory - Vox.com
- 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]
- Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU) - Reason - 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]
- 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]