Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech ruling that curbs government pressure campaigns

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNN Politics

Updated 10:28 AM EDT, Thu May 30, 2024


CNN — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups.

The decision means the NRA may continue to pursue its lawsuit against a New York official who urged banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights group following the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people dead. “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries,” the opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

The NRA claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, not only leaned on insurance companies to part ways with the gun lobby but threatened enforcement actions against those firms if they failed to comply.

At the center of the dispute was a meeting Vullo had with insurance market Lloyd’s of London in 2018 in which the NRA claims she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with the campaign against gun groups. Vullo tried to wave off the significance of the meeting, arguing in part that the NRA’s allegations of what took place were not specific.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/supreme-court-first-amendment/index.html

---

Was monitoring on SCOTUSBlog and they apparently remanded back to the lower courts to further review.

Article updated.

Original article -

Published 10:12 AM EDT, Thu May 30, 2024


CNN — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups.

The decision means the NRA may continue to pursue its lawsuit against a New York official who urged banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights group following the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people dead.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

[BComplex]

1. So the supreme court is still circling the sewer drain.

What assholes.

[toesonthenose]

2. In all fairness, it was a 9-0 ruling. Not stating that I agree or not with ruling, just pointing out.

[BComplex]

3. WTF? Why would the democratically appointed justices agree to that?

I don't know if I can take any more of this.

[unblock]

5. Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion

I'm no fan of the nra, of course, but it does seem like a stretch for a government regulator to pressure and threaten other organizations just because they may have ties with the nra.

As long as the nra is not labeled a terrorist organization, this does seem like an abuse of regulatory powers.

I wouldn't want government regulators pressuring organizations to drop ties to pflag or the naacp or Black Lives Matter or other progressive groups.

[hadEnuf]

9. However, if it were Republican government regulators pressuring organizations to drop ties with

PFLAG, the NAACP or Black Lives Matters, I doubt very much that it would have been a 9-0 decision and there would be calls to investigate and declare PFLAG, the NAACP and Black Lives Matters as terrorist organizations.

As always, we play strictly to the rules while the right claims to, and then does whatever the hell they want.

Then we wonder why our asses hurt so much.

Just sayin'.

[Irish_Dem]

10. But the NRA is a terrorist organization, it supports the slaughter of innocent Americans.

[unblock]

25. I agree, but it has not been designated as such

[Irish_Dem]

26. Many issues of morality are not legally labeled.

It in no way changes the moral issue.

The SC could have taken a pass on this case.
But they chose to support the NRA.

[unblock]

28. Red state government oppression against lefty causes would have skyrocketed otherwise.

They'll do it anyway, but not to the extent they would if scotus effectively said it's ok.

[Irish_Dem]

30. They could have easily made this point with another case.

They fact they chose to do so with a group which encourages the wholesale slaughter of
innocent Americans is despicable.

I am totally against in any way supporting or protecting the NRA.

The elected official was correct in going after the NRA.

I am going to keep speaking out against wrong doing and evil.

Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

[markodochartaigh]

33. I think that this is a good point.

Time and again we see the "both sides" arguments. And it often seems that the reich-wing chooses a particularly egregious example on their side.

[Groundhawg]

41. The purpose of the court isn't to do what's best for people

That's the job of lawmakers, the court is there to determine what the law means.

[tritsofme]

49. The Constitution exists protect us from folks like that official, and yourself.

I tend to think of the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in instances like this:

“if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

[Dr. Strange]

7. You should read the decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf

Sotomayer spells out why it's a bad idea to have the government threaten their use of regulatory powers to affect the speech of organizations that they disagree with.

[Irish_Dem]

11. The NRA is dangerous, it is not a matter of genteel disagreement.

The NRA supports the murder of Americans.

[Polybius]

16. Because speech that you don't like should still be free

It was a good decision.

[FBaggins]

22. Because "NRA Evil... We must vote against them regardless of the law or circumstances"...

... is not a valid legal philosophy.

IOW - you can't say that it wasn't rape because the victim was a prostitute.

[cstanleytech]

15. Unfortunately it's the correct ruling as it could open s Pandora's box of problems.

That doesn't prevent a person running in an election to use the ties to the NRA against Banks and others institutions though as that's free speech as well.

[Walleye]

4. The Russian funded NRA

[Irish_Dem]

13. Exactly, Putin found a way to help murder innocent Americans.

-Gun violence is the leading cause of death in the US.
-120 Americans are killed by guns every day.
-Gun violence is the leading cause of death for American children and teens.

Putin gets a sadistic pleasure from this. It is why he funds the NRA.

Fund a domestic terrorist organization which promotes the slaughter of American men, women and children.

How many bribes did the SC get from the NRA?
Obviously a lot.

[EX500rider]

31. Gun violence is the leading cause in older teens but not children

Accidents are still the leading cause of death among children

[Irish_Dem]

44. This is not correct. Currently, the leading cause of death for children 1-19yrs is gun violence.

The data changed in 2020.

In 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death in the age group 1-19 years of age.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released updated official mortality data that showed
45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020 — a new peak.

Please note infants are not included in this cohort group due to their unique causes of illness and mortality.

The previous analysis in 2016, showed that firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes, both traffic-related and nontraffic-related, as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. This data is now outdated.

1. May 2024 remarks by President Joe Biden on gun violence now being the leading cause of death for children:
In 2020, we promised to take on the issue of the epidemic of gun violence, knowing that today, in America, gun violence is the number-one cause of the death of the children of America — not car accidents, not cancer — gun violence.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/29/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-philadelphia-pa/#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20we%20promised%20to%20take%20on%20the%20issue%20of,%2C%20not%20cancer%20%E2%80%94%20gun%20violence.

2.New England Journal of Medicine
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

3. National Institutes of Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042524/

4. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens.
https://everytownresearch.org/graph/firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-for-american-children-and-teens/

[EX500rider]

45. It is correct

1st, 19 year old's are not "children", they could well be Sergeants in the US military if they joined at 17.

They have to add the 17 to 19yo's to get that "fact".

If you break it down by age you will find the leading cause of death amoung actual children is still accidents.


The leading causes of death for children vary by age group:
0–1 year: Developmental and genetic conditions present at birth, premature birth, and accidents
1–4 years: Accidents, congenital abnormalities, and homicide
5–9 years: Accidents, cancer, and congenital abnormalities
10–14 years: Accidents, intentional self-harm, and cancer

[Irish_Dem]

46. I will go with NIH, CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and President Joe Biden.

They are the authorities.

[EX500rider]

48. Sure, if you pretend 19yo gang bangers shooting each other are "children"

not the leading cause amoung actual children though.

[sarisataka]

32. Not even top 10

"Gun violence is the leading cause of death in the US."- per the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm gun deaths are not in the top 10 leading causes of death.

[intelpug]

47. Judicial Bribes

"How many bribes did the SC get from the NRA'' At this point in time, Judging from the amount of "bribes" the court has supposedly gotten from this source , that source, and any other,,, I would expect by now each and every one of them should be personally worth more than all the oil sheiks, Bloomberg , Soros, ect. COMBINED!

[cactusfractal]

6. Regardless of our feelings about NRA, this is good

"Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries,” the opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Had this been Texas officials pressuring a company to not do business with Planned Parenthood, we would rightly be upset.

It all depends on whose ox is gored 😉

[Irish_Dem]

8. The Supreme Court has blood on its hands.

Encourages and supports the wholesale murder of innocent Americans.

They should hang their heads in shame.

[Polybius]

17. 9-0 n/t

[Irish_Dem]

18. Makes it more disgusting.

[Polybius]

21. Makes ya wanna read the ruling

Sotomayor wrote the opinion.

[Irish_Dem]

24. I read it.

Supporting the NRA in any way shape or form is abetting the murder of innocent Americans.
They are a domestic terrorist organization funded by Putin who is quite pleased he found a way
to murder Americans with no consequences.

The SC could have taken a pass on protecting the NRA, but they took up the case.

How much NRA gets funneled to the SC?

[The Mouth]

12. I want 'em to toss out the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts.

OF course I'm happy about this, but only a baby step towards restoring the RKBA.

[Eugene]

14. This can cut both ways, as it should also apply to red state officials coming after ESG and the like.

It all comes down to how this is enforced.

[cstanleytech]

19. Could this effect how Congress has been blocking funding to things like Planned Parenthood?

After all they have been wielding their power in a similar way.

[CaptainTruth]

20. What about when Ron DeFascist removes 2 elected prosecutors...

...based purely on what they said. Neither one actually *did* anything illegal or that constituted a dereliction of duty, they were removed purely for what they said.

Yes, a judge did rule their First Amendment rights were violated, but the Court had no power to impose a remedy.

[sarisataka]

23. Correct ruling despite the appellant.

The government should not be able to back door abridging free speech

[Irish_Dem]

27. It is a moral good to go after the Putin funded NRA.

And the SC choses to do a moral wrong.

[TexasDem69]

40. So you ignore the Constitution

Because you dislike the NRA?

[walkingman]

29. So this ruling says -

"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"

Why wouldn't this ruling apply to the Texas State law that says - If you want to sell widgets — or really any item or service — to the state of Texas, you first have to formally pledge that you won't boycott Israel and that you won't "discriminate against" firearm companies.

[onenote]

36. Has the Texas law been challenged? Has it been upheld by the Supreme Court?

[walkingman]

43. It appear that it was challenged by the ACLU and deemed OK?

I'm not sure of the differences, etc. but seems to be pretty similar to me?
This is an interesting article about issue.

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/

[GreenWave]

34. Since the NRA tries to force guns into institutions, NRA should be forced to have guns at its meetings too!

Bunch of cowards!

Mass murderers stopped by good guys with guns (Due paying NRA members): Is it still at zero?

[onenote]

35. The ACLU provided the attorney that argued the case on behalf of the NRA

Figured I might as well make some more heads here explode.

For the record, it was the correct decision.

[LeftInTX]

37. ACLU is not always on our side. Not everyone realizes this.

"free speech" is an issue that applies to all parties, which includes the right.

[onenote]

38. "Our side" always should be on the side of the first amendment.

[TexasDem69]

39. Outstanding!

We should always support free speech, and this sounds like a clear violation by NY. And those calling for selective enforcement because they don’t like the NRA are just wrong, embarrassing to DU, and probably should think about taking remedial classes in U.S. History and civics.

[jgmiller]

42. People need to stop thinking this is about the NRA

Yes the NRA brought the suit but this is about government and the 1st amendment. This was the correct ruling and 9-0 proves it, the government cannot restrict speech even if it's speech you hate with every fiber of your being.