Reposted by Replace Your Republican (RYR)
Replace Your Republican (RYR)
@replaceyourrep.bsky.social
5.7K followers 5.3K following 45 posts
Helping fight for our Democracy! #RYR #ReplaceYourRepublican #Resist 🌊💙#VoteBlue #BlueWave #FlipTheHouse Buy your RYR products on our online store! www.stickermule.com/replaceyourrepu…
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 22–842
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. MARIA T. VULLO
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[May 30, 2024]
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA’s pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:yobyqjt4hs5icoihvaombhhn/bafkreibdecduqqpqlv3rfatpddnmhbxibnllljrctyhxmkbbbfd6x23tda)
