NY: Supreme Court rules for NRA in New York government coercion battle

Source: nbcnews.com 5/30/24
[ACSOL is posting this as it could relate to eventually making the registry non-public]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the National Rifle Association can pursue a claim that a New York state official’s efforts to encourage companies to end ties with the gun rights group constituted unlawful coercion.

The justices unanimously found that the NRA can move forward with arguments that its free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, then the superintendent of the New York state Department of Financial Services.

The case was one of two before the justices concerning allegations of government coercion of private entities. The other, yet to be decided, involves claims that the Biden administration unlawfully pressured social media companies when it urged them to remove certain content.

“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday’s ruling. The NRA, she added, plausibly alleges that Vullo “did just that.”

William Brewer, a lawyer for the NRA, said the ruling was a “landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom.”

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wouldn’t such a broadly applicable ruling be useful for Registrants and the goal of making SO Registries non-public, “law enforcement use only”? 🤔

Just thinking aloud. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I read the article but I’m not sure how this is relevant to PFRs? Could someone explain?

Trying to get from A to B.

A: The State cannot coerce private entities to suppress disfavored speech
B: Public disclosure of Registry information violates A.

While I love the idea, I’m not seeing how you get from A to B.

The website suppresses speech? How?

It would seem to me that the website compels speech, by forcing me to provide all the personal data disseminated on the website. It further compels by implying that I endorse the need to disseminate the supplied data. If I did not agree with the State that this data needs to be publicly disseminated, I would not supply it, is the implication I am compelled to make.

Forbidden to protest the implication of endorsement? I am not provided with any means to protest the dissimilation, thus the implication that I endorse the discrimination, that I am compelled to make, remains?

Hanoi Hilton videos? The Prisoners of War (PoW) held at the facility known as the “Hanoi Hilton” were compelled to make filmed statements denouncing the American involvement in Vietnam. The film footage was then disseminated by their jailers.

By compelling these people to make these statements, and providing no means to denounce them, their jailers fabricate the appearance of endorsement.

“If the PoW didn’t agree with the statements, they would not have made them”.

The PoW is compelled to make public statements, and forbidden to protest/denounce their endorsement of the statement.

Same thing with the website?
“If the PFR didn’t agree this data needs to be made public, they wouldn’t supply it.” Thus my Free Speech right to protest/denounce is suppressed by the State, and the appearance of endorsement of this compelled speech is maintained. That’s true, but does it matter to this decision?

That’s the best I got .. anyone else have an idea?

There is a jump from A to B. Many websites keep a running database of email addresses that are compiled as part of registration across the country. When an email address is detected as being part of that database the account is immediately disabled. Therefore, because a registrant’s information is made public in anyway shape or form it has the tendency to chill free speech. That is the A to B jump but actually proving this to meet a legal burden is a different story.