UPDATE 1-US Supreme Court won't revive NRA free speech suit against NY ex-official

But they declined to do so a second time after a lower court again dismissed the lawsuit. The NRA's 2018 lawsuit accused Vullo of unlawfully retaliating against it for its constitutionally protected gun rights advocacy by targeting it with an "implicit censorship regime" following ‌a 2018 mass shooting in which 17 people were killed at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

The U.S. ‌Supreme ​Court declined on Monday to revive the National Rifle Association's lawsuit accusing a former New York state official of coercing banks and insurers to avoid doing business with the gun rights group. The justices in 2024 had reinstated the group's lawsuit accusing Maria Vullo, the ‌former superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services, of violating its free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. But they declined to do so a second time after a lower court again dismissed the lawsuit.

The NRA's 2018 lawsuit accused Vullo of unlawfully retaliating against it for its constitutionally protected gun rights advocacy by targeting it with an "implicit censorship regime" following ‌a 2018 mass shooting in which 17 people were killed at a high school in Parkland, Florida. The NRA won a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in May 2024 ‌that revived its suit after its dismissal by lower courts. The justices in that decision held 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."

But the Supreme Court in that ruling did not address whether Vullo was immune from being sued under a legal defense called qualified immunity, which shields officials from civil litigation in certain circumstances. The case ⁠returned to ​the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ⁠which ruled last year that Vullo was immune from the NRA's claims because the law addressing her conduct was unclear at the time. This prompted the NRA's second appeal to the justices that the Supreme ⁠Court turned away on Monday.

"I'm pleased that the Supreme Court refused the NRA's attempt to resurrect this baseless lawsuit, which was built on false allegations and correctly dismissed by the 2nd Circuit," Vullo said ​in a statement. A lawyer representing the NRA in the case did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The NRA, an influential lobbying group closely ⁠aligned with Republicans, has opposed gun control measures favored by many Democrats and backed pivotal lawsuits that have widened U.S. gun rights. Its suit alleged that New York's "blacklisting" campaign sought to deprive the NRA of basic financial services ⁠and threatened ​its advocacy work. Vullo, who was appointed to her post by a Democratic governor, called upon banks and insurers to consider the "reputational risks" of doing business with gun rights groups following the Parkland shooting.

Vullo later fined Lloyd's of London and two other insurers more than $13 million for offering an NRA-endorsed product called "Carry Guard" that her office found was ⁠in violation of New York insurance law. The product provided liability coverage for policyholders who caused injuries from gunfire, even in cases involving the wrongful use of a firearm. The insurers ⁠agreed to stop selling NRA-endorsed products that New ⁠York considered illegal.

The 2nd Circuit in its ruling last year said Vullo deserved qualified immunity because the law was not "clearly established" when she pressured banks and insurers into disassociating from the NRA. "Reasonable officials in Vullo's position would not have known for certain ... that her ‌conduct crossed the line from forceful ‌but permissible persuasion to impermissible coercion and retaliation," the 2nd Circuit wrote.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)