The National Rifle Association is back at the Supreme Court seeking permission to pursue damages against a New York official who tried to get financial institutions to rethink doing business with the gun group.
The NRA wants the justices to rule on whether Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, has what’s known as “qualified immunity,” or a shield from liability for her official actions unless they clearly violated a law.
Last year, the high court ruled unanimously that the NRA had made a case that Ms. Vullo violated the organization’s First Amendment rights by discouraging companies from doing business with it, blaming the group for gun violence.
Her actions included opening an investigation into insurance companies doing business with members of the NRA.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous court, said the NRA plausibly argued that its rights were violated, reversing the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the lawsuit.
The case returns now after the 2nd Circuit issued a new ruling finding Ms. Vullo was able to shield herself from liability because she was pressuring entities to cut ties with a group under her investigation.
The NRA said in its filing that decision is “a recipe for allowing blatantly unconstitutional conduct to go unchecked.”
“After all, a future official looking to abuse their regulatory power to suppress speech can surely find a ‘novel’ way to do so even after this case,” read the NRA’s petition.
It argued the ruling could allow a state’s health department to push medical providers to drop certain patients they disagree with, or an education department could punish a school attended by the children of a disfavored person.
Doug Hamlin, CEO and executive vice president of the NRA, said the group wants the Supreme Court to let government officials “know that there can be consequences for leveraging power to harm those who disagree with their policies.”
The case is National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo.
It would take four justices to vote in favor of hearing the appeal for oral arguments to be granted.
