You may recall that New York State government pressured banks and insurers to not do business with NRA expl;icitly as an attempt to interfere wityh NRA's political activity. The Court ruled 9-0 (with Justice Sotomayor writing the opinion) that:The Court ruled 9-0 (with Justice Sotomayor writing the opinion) that:
Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA’s pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.
So the NRA's Complaint plausibly stated a cause of action, survived the demurrer stage and the State of New York must answer the complaint and the trial must go forward?
ReplyDelete