NRA Vs. Government: Landmark Case Reveals Startling Abuse Of Power

The NRA alleges that Vullo used her regulatory powers to penalize the organization due to its pro-gun stance, thereby violating the First Amendment.

As reported by ABC News, the NRA is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which, despite opposing the NRA's views, believes the case could set a precedent for government officials to target other groups, such as those advocating for abortion rights.

"Government officials are free to urge people not to support political groups they oppose. What they cannot do is use their regulatory might to add 'or else' to that request. Respondent Vullo did just that," stated ACLU Legal Director David Cole during the court proceedings.

 WATCH: BRITISH COLONEL RICHARD KEMP REPORTING FROM GAZA

Cole accused Vullo of abusing her office's coercive power, alleging that in February 2018, she offered to overlook unrelated insurance violations by Lloyds, the insurance underwriter, if it agreed to sever ties with the NRA. Lloyds complied with this request.

 WATCH: NO CLUE WHY THEY ARE PROTESTING: "I WISH I WAS MORE EDUCATED"

March 19, 2024

Cole further stated that Vullo issued guidance letters and a press release six weeks later, instructing the banks and insurance companies under her supervision to cut off their ties with the NRA. This action was not due to any alleged illegality on the NRA's part, but rather because of their promotion of guns. These guidance letters were issued following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

 TRUMP READY TO DEBATE BIDEN 'ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE,' BUT WILL IT HAPPEN?

A press release from then-Governor Andrew Cuomo revealed that he had directed Vullo to issue the guidance, stating that doing business with the NRA "sends the wrong message."

Cole continued, "Shortly thereafter, Vullo extracted legally binding consent orders from the NRA’s three principal insurance providers, barring them from ever providing affinity insurance to the group ever again, no matter how lawfully, they do so."

 CRITICS SLAM BIDEN'S ATTEMPT TO RELATE PERSONAL TRAGEDY TO POLICE OFFICER DEATHS

He added, "This was not about enforcing insurance law or mere government speech. It was a campaign by the state's highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy."

 FROM DISGRACE TO REDEMPTION: DAN RATHER TO MAKE UNEXPECTED RETURN TO CBS

During the proceedings, the justices sought to distinguish between unlawful pressure and permissible government advocacy. Justice Samuel Alito asked Cole to define when such pressure becomes excessive.

Cole responded that in this case, there were "explicit requests to punish a group because of its advocacy and the invocation of the very tools she has to make life miserable for them," adding that "There's no question on this record that they encouraged people to punish the NRA."

 KARMA IS A B*TCH: COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO CRITICIZED NYPD NOW BEGGING FOR THEIR PROTECTION

He further defined "coercion" as the threat, either implicit or explicit, of an action being taken, in this case, government action against the NRA.

During questioning of attorney Neal Katyal, who represents Vullo, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the solicitor general supports the NRA in this case.

 BOMBSHELL REPORT: THE SECRET PLOT TO OUST KARINE JEAN-PIERRE

Katyal responded, "I think we're all basically in agreement that, for example, that the Second Circuit got it right. The second circuit's test is, government officials cannot use their regulatory powers to coerce individuals or entities into refraining from protected speech."

 SECRET SERVICE SHENANIGANS: VP HARRIS' BRAWLING BODYGUARD STORY TAKES A TWISTED TURN

Katyal argued that the NRA was "seeking to weaponize the First Amendment and exempt themselves from the rules that govern you and me simply because they're a controversial speaker."

He also claimed that the NRA and the three insurance companies in question were the ones breaking the law, stating that "They were selling intentional criminal act insurance, and all of the products they offered were unlawful because the NRA refused to get a license."

Katyal warned that a ruling in favor of the NRA could lead to the organization challenging other enforcement actions across the country on the grounds of First Amendment violations.

“You would be opening the door to something very, very dangerous and destructive down the road,” Katyal cautioned. A decision on the case is expected by the end of June.