The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case brought forward by the National Rifle Association (NRA), claiming that the New York government used coercion to pressure companies into severing ties with, and debanking, the NRA.
The allegation raises questions about government overreach and brings crucial aspects of free speech and censorship into the spotlight. Notably, the case, named NRA v. Vullo, has all of the common themes of assumed government intimidation aimed at stifling speech.
A central argument in the NRA’s case is that Maria Vullo, the Chief of New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS), used tactics akin to those in Bantam Books v. Sullivan to intimidate banks and insurance firms into discontinuing their association with the NRA. These allegedly include backchannel threats, veiled guidance communications, and biased enforcement of regulatory violations.
The NRA contends that the reasons behind this are rooted in their advocacy of Second Amendment rights, discouraging financial institutions from doing business with them, and citing a reputation risk.
