Later today, the Supreme Court will hear from the NRA, a.k.a. the National Rifle Association, in a case regarding a former state official from New York. The NRA has claims that the individual pressured banks and insurance companies to blacklist and block the NRA from business after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School occurred in Parkland, Florida. The former New York state official worked for the New York State Department of Financial Services. They did name the former employee, stating that it is Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the department. The case is being brought to the highest court in the United States, as the organization claims that Vullo abused her regulatory power and in turn violated the First Amendment.
The group claims that Vullo personally opposed the pro-gun stance of the organization and therefore personally sought to harm the group.
Vullo has testified already in this case and has been very forthcoming regarding the accusations. She confirmed that she did share guidance to different businesses regarding the potential for “reputational risks” that would come from working with gun groups. She is adamant though that she never pressured any company to formally cut ties with the organization and that instead these decisions were done entirely on their own.
Many companies, even ones that did not work with the Department of Financial Services and Vullo, cut or reduced their work with the NRA after the shooting occurred. The shooting was one of the worst school shootings, leaving 17 dead and injuring another 17. After the shooting, the anti-gun movement had more flames under the fire, pushing more people away from pro-gun stances than ever before. Because of this, companies could see the risks of NRA associations themselves.
The NRA is being represented in the case by the American Civil Liberties Union, a.k.a. the ACLU.
The ACLU is frequently against the NRA as they are a very progressive, left-leaning organization that does a lot of work for gun control. However, they view the case as a possible future “playbook” for the government targeting organizations. They see the risk of this then affecting organizations they support and work with, such as ones fighting for abortion rights or environmental protections and want to take action to make sure that does not happen.
The case is expected to continue on for a but as neither side shows signs of relenting.
