Supreme Court Rejects NRA’s Second Appeal in New York Official Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the National Rifle Association's appeal for a second time in their free speech case against former New York financial regulator Maria Vullo. The NRA claimed Vullo pressured banks and insurers to cut ties with the gun rights organization following the 2018 Parkland school shooting.

The highest court in the nation has turned down the National Rifle Association’s second attempt to pursue legal action against a former New York financial regulator, according to a Monday decision.

The gun rights organization had filed suit against Maria Vullo, who previously headed New York’s Department of Financial Services, claiming she violated their constitutional right to free speech by pressuring financial institutions to sever business relationships with the NRA.

In May 2024, the Supreme Court had unanimously restored the organization’s legal challenge after lower courts initially threw out the case. However, the justices refused to intervene again after another court dismissed the lawsuit a second time.

The NRA’s original 2018 legal filing claimed Vullo engaged in unlawful retaliation against the group for their Second Amendment advocacy through what they described as an “implicit censorship regime” in the aftermath of the deadly Parkland, Florida high school massacre that claimed 17 lives.

When the Supreme Court restored the case last year, the justices ruled 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.”

However, that earlier Supreme Court decision did not resolve whether Vullo could claim qualified immunity, a legal protection that prevents government officials from facing civil lawsuits in specific situations.

The case went back to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which determined that Vullo deserved immunity protection because the relevant law was not clearly defined when she took her actions. This ruling led the NRA to make their unsuccessful second Supreme Court appeal.

The influential lobbying organization, which maintains strong ties to Republican politicians and has challenged gun control measures supported by many Democrats, alleged that New York conducted a “blacklisting” effort designed to cut off the NRA’s access to essential financial services and undermine their advocacy efforts.

Following the Parkland tragedy, Vullo, who received her appointment from a Democratic governor, urged financial institutions to weigh the “reputational risks” of maintaining business relationships with gun advocacy organizations.

Vullo’s office subsequently imposed fines exceeding $13 million on Lloyd’s of London and two additional insurance companies for selling an NRA-backed product known as “Carry Guard.” Her department determined this product violated state insurance regulations by providing liability protection for policyholders who injured others with firearms, including cases involving improper gun use.

The insurance companies agreed to discontinue sales of NRA-endorsed products that New York deemed illegal.

In their ruling, the 2nd Circuit concluded that Vullo warranted qualified immunity protection because the legal standards were not “clearly established” when she applied pressure on banks and insurers to distance themselves 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 appeals court stated in their decision.