Supreme Court Declines to Reopen NRA’s Free‑Speech Case Against Former NY Official

The U. S. Supreme Court chose not to bring the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit back into play after a lower court once again dismissed it. The case centers on Maria Vullo, who served as the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services. The NRA claims that she pressured banks and insurers to cut ties with the gun‑rights group, arguing that this action violated its First Amendment rights. In 2018 the NRA filed a suit accusing Vullo of retaliating against its advocacy following the tragic shooting at a Florida high school. A May 2024 Supreme Court decision revived the lawsuit, stating that government officials cannot use their authority to punish or silence speech. That ruling did not decide whether Vullo could be protected by qualified immunity, a defense that shields officials from lawsuits when the law is unclear. The case returned to the 2nd U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which last year held that Vullo was immune because the relevant law had not been clearly established at the time of her actions.The court noted that a reasonable official in her position would not have known for certain that she was overstepping the line from permissible persuasion to unlawful coercion. The NRA argues that New York’s campaign effectively blacklisted the organization, denying it basic financial services and threatening its ability to advocate. Vullo had urged financial institutions to consider the “reputational risks” of dealing with gun‑rights groups after the Parkland tragedy. She later fined Lloyd’s of London and two other insurers more than $13 million for selling an NRA‑endorsed product that New York law deemed illegal. The insurers agreed to stop offering the product following her directive. By refusing to revive the suit, the Supreme Court leaves the question of qualified immunity unresolved. The decision signals that the justices are reluctant to reopen disputes involving political advocacy and government regulation.