A former Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) is alleged to have used the power of her office to coerce financial institutions to refuse to do business with the National Rifle Association (NRA).
We see a good deal of this alleged misconduct as partisans engage with banks and insurance companies as a way to stifle an operation or impair its ability to operate, which includes the ability to freely associate, do business with, and engage in public expression.
Maria Vullo, while serving as DFS superintendent, appears to have made it her mission to ensure that those over whom her office had regulatory authority chose not to do business with the NRA. And while the action was based on a legitimate violation of state law.
[An] investigation revealed at least two kinds of violations of New York law: that Carry Guard insured intentional criminal acts, and the NRA promoted Carry Guard without an insurance producer license. By mid-November, upon finding out about the investigation following DFS information requests, Lockton and Chubb suspended Carry Guard.
Lockton and Chubb paid fines in the millions and made every effort to comply with New York State law, but Vullo used this single instance as an excuse to reach out to everyone and anyone associated with insurance lined to the NRA. Vullo used DFS letterhead. Vullo spoke as the Superintendent of the DFS. Vullo, upon finding minor violations, offered to dismiss or ignore them if the business promised to cease all relationships with the NRA (and any other gun groups). These companies complied, aiding Vullo’s viewpoint discrimination to make it difficult or impossible for the NRA to operate in the State.
The case made its way up the judicial food chain to the US Supreme Court which arrived at a 9-0 unanimous verdict. In the opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, Vullo is shown to have clearly violated the First Amendment rights of the NRA (citations removed).
Nothing in this case gives advocacy groups like the NRA a “right to absolute immunity from [government] investigation,” or a “right to disregard [state or federal] laws.” Similarly, nothing here prevents government officials from forcefully condemning views with which they disagree. For those permissible actions, the Constitution “relies first and foremost on the ballot box, not on rules against viewpoint discrimination, to check the government when it speaks.” Yet where, as here, a government official makes coercive threats in a private meeting behind closed doors, the “ballot box” is an especially poor check on that official’s authority. 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 Left hates the NRA, so they will hate this decision, but I have yet to see any email alerts from MoveOn listing Justice Sotomayor or Justice Jackson (for example) as “constitutional Threats” who must be impeached. I guess they can’t fundraise off of them, even when their BIPOC justices “vote” the wrong way.