The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case that pits the National Rifle Association against a New York state official.
In the wake of the 2018 shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 students and staff dead, Maria Vullo, then of the New York Department of Financial Services, suggested banks and insurance companies think twice about providing services to the NRA.
Some might call that one person's opinion. But Vullo's agency regulates those banks and insurance companies.
The NRA said Vullo used coercion of regulated businesses to violate that group's First Amendment rights and had cost the organization a substantial sum of money.
They lost at the federal appeals court level, which ruled that "government officials have a right – indeed, a duty – to address issues of public concern." And so the NRA took the case to the nation's highest court.
"Government officials are free to speak their minds, but not to wield their authority to pressure others to penalize speech based on its viewpoint," the NRA contended in a brief.
The justices seemed more sympathetic to the NRA's arguments that appealate court had. But we will have to wait for the ruling.
In our view, the NRA has a good case. The organization advocates for Second Amendment rights. Some may not like that, but it is not a crime. Indeed, it s a right protected by the Constitution.
Companies can decide for themselves whether or not to do business with a group like the NRA. But in our view, even the appearance of a state regulator trying to apply pressure is inappropriate.