Posted by Markus Hand.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its claims that a former New York state official, Maria Vullo, unconstitutionally pressured insurance companies like Chubb Ltd. and Lloyd’s of London to cease doing business with the gun lobby. The case also names former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as a defendant. The NRA alleges that the actions of these officials amounted to “blacklisting” and violated their free speech rights. This case will have significant implications for the extent to which government officials can use their positions to undermine the activities of advocacy groups. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments and make a ruling by the end of June.
The dispute revolves around Vullo’s investigation of the NRA’s “Carry Guard” insurance program, which covers losses associated with the use of personal firearms, including criminal defense costs. The NRA claims that Vullo extended her targeting to other insurance products endorsed by the NRA and threatened insurance companies with investigations and penalties if they didn’t distance themselves from the gun rights organization. The NRA cites guideline letters and a press release in which Vullo urged insurers to consider the reputational risk of dealing with the NRA, particularly following the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Vullo’s lawyers argue that she did not violate the First Amendment and was merely expressing her views regarding a national tragedy and encouraging regulated entities to evaluate their relationships with gun-promotion organizations. This case raises important questions about the limits of government officials’ authority in influencing the actions of private entities related to advocacy groups, and the Supreme Court’s decision will impact how such cases are handled in the future.
Markus is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.