The Supreme Court Just Gave Us Hope

In Vullo, the Court considered whether the New York Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights when she launched a campaign to coerce private actors “to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion activities.” MariaVullo and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo met with executives at insurance companies doing business with the NRA to threaten the companies with adverse regulatory proceedings unless they ceased their relationships with the NRA. 

Advertisement

In a unanimous opinion, Justice Sotomayor ruled that this campaign, if proven true at trial, was illegal. “Vullo was free to criticize the NRA and pursue the conceded violations of New York insurance law,” the Court held. “She could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.” 

The case offers direct parallels to the censorship of Covid-related information. The Biden White House repeatedly worked through third parties – including Meta, Twitter, and Google – to censor disfavored information. 

Ed Morrissey

I certainly hope that the court will see the parallels laid out in this lengthy essay between Vullo and the censorship regime in Murthy. While Vullo was nominally about Second Amendment advocacy, the core of the case was about the First Amendment and the prohibition against censorship via abuse of regulatory power. As such, we should expect the court to eventually rule consistent with Vullo in the latter cases. But will they? 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement