May 30, 2024

"Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s 'threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means ofcoercion' against a third party 'to achieve the suppression' of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment...."

"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."

Writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a unanimous Supreme Court, in National Rifle Association v. Maria Vullo, issued this morning.

Justice Gorsuch adds a very concise concurrence:
I write separately to explain my understanding of the Court’s opinion, which I join in full. Today we reaffirm a well-settled principle: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” As the Court mentions, many lower courts have taken to analyzing this kind of coercion claim under a four-pronged “multifactor test.” These tests, the Court explains, might serve “as a useful, though nonexhaustive, guide.” But sometimes they might not.... Indeed, the Second Circuit’s decision to break up its analysis into discrete parts and “tak[e] the [complaint’s] allegations in isolation” appears only to have contributed to its mistaken conclusion that the National Rifle Association failed to state a claim. Lower courts would therefore do well to heed this Court’s directive: Whatever value these “guideposts” serve, they remain “just” that and nothing more. “Ultimately, the critical” question is whether the plaintiff has “plausibly allege[d] conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s speech.”

54 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Great Constitution we got there…as soon as the Bill of Rights was made a part of the deal.

Dave Begley said...

Guess Sonia didn't cry after this decision was released.

RideSpaceMountain said...

"Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then..."

And why do they think that is? Why would it need to be reiterated? Why are so many of these cases treading over the same real estate over and over again? Why are these government officials having to be fucking told what they can and can not do when they already know?

The law is just something creative legislators and corrupt state officials can modify again and again and again. The punishment is the process. This unanimous decision means absolutely nothing to these people. They're all in a room now trying to figure out how to violate this age-old principle in a different way, guaranteed.

Mr. T. said...

This must have been one of the rulings she cried about.


If only the left would hurry up and destroy the Constitution, poor Sonia wouldn't have to cry over having to uphold the First and Second Amendments.

Achilles said...

Was the DEI hire crying when she wrote this?

Enigma said...

The ruling was 9 to 0. This included wise brown and black women with lived experience. Watch for gun-industry lawsuits against those who initiated strategic anti-gun lawfare a decade ago.

Michael Bloomberg? Michael Bloomberg? Michael Bloomberg? Calling Michael Bloomberg. Get out your checkbook and prepare to pay.

Mason G said...

"Why are these government officials having to be fucking told what they can and can not do when they already know?"

Joe Biden. Student loans.

DKWalser said...

I hope this decision is a good indication of how the Court will rule on whether social media companies were engaged in unlawful censorship when they blocked (mostly conservative) posts providing information and arguments that ran counter to the views government actors were trying to promote.

Joe Smith said...

Isn't this just another form of lawfare/social engineering?

Like not allowing legal weed shops to have bank accounts, or pressuring credit card companies to not take gun-related transactions...

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

unanimous.

May leftists eat shit.

Original Mike said...

Corrupt government entities held in check.

See, young people, the Constitution is your salvation. Embrace it.

Hassayamper said...

Why are these government officials having to be fucking told what they can and can not do when they already know?

Because they are enemy Communist monsters and among the most evil people in the world, who have forgotten that our forefathers explicitly intended for us to pick up weapons, hunt them down, and slaughter them without mercy if they dared to inflict tyranny on the people. Their severed heads would be nailed to the Potomac bridges by now, if they had lived 250 years ago.

The most important thing any of us can do as parents is to teach our children that government is the #1 enemy of mankind and should always be heartily hated and held in the deepest suspicion. All of the criminals and terrorists who ever lived cannot match a hundredth part of the death and misery that governments inflicted on their own citizens just in the past century. No opportunity to heap contempt, opprobrium, and ridicule on government (and upon those who love it for its own sake) should be missed. Every possible chance to sabotage its functions, undermine its authority, or strip it of power, prestige, personnel, or revenue should be acted upon.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

United we stand. Another unanimous decision by the Roberts Court. We are living in a special era.

Breezy said...

9-0 —> Durbin and Whitehouse hardest hit.

Mikey NTH said...

Unanimous decisions on subjects such as this with a defendant such as the NRA is hiw the court says "you done f*cked up" to a lower court and the government complainant.

Patrick said...

Very nice to see this was unanimous!

RideSpaceMountain said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RideSpaceMountain said...

"Unanimous decisions on subjects such as this with a defendant such as the NRA is hiw the court says "you done f*cked up" to a lower court and the government complainant."

Or it says "hide it better" to a lower court and the government complainant. Do you really think the mutants who spawned this case don't know what they were doing? For you and I, it's "you done f*cked up". For the moral hagfish who fucked up all they hear is "hide it better". There's zero penalty for them except at the ballot box, and the ballot box is filled with the votes of people who would throw them a party for denying the NRA its rights.

rhhardin said...

Six decades ago ...

They're going for the historic-speech register.

Quaestor said...

Here’s a problem. Though it was a government official who wronged the NRA, any damages awarded will be the taxpayers’ expense. There will be no punitive consequences that will affect Maria Vullo personally other than a possible letter of reprimand inserted in her employment file. Since her actions against the National Rifle Association are seen with approval by the governor and the New York State bureaucracy generally, even that reprimand will be watered down and pro forma. Even if there’s a radical change of political direction in Albany, the NY civil service rules will make it nearly impossible to fire her or discipline Vullo in any meaningful way.

Several others have noted that the SCOTUS has been over this and other important First and Second Amendment grounds repeatedly and wondered why. It’s because there is no tangible incentive not to disregard the Constitution. We this at the federal level as well. Just getting FJB bureaucrats to make truthful and non-evasive statements under oath before Congress has become as productive as bailing out the Titanic with a sieve. No answers are forthcoming because no sanctions are feared. For this I propose a solution. Anyone seeking to wield governmental authority must post a bond before assuming office. Any failure to observe the restraints imposed by the Constitution entails forfeiture of that bond.

Original Mike said...

"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."

How is this not 100% applicable to the Biden administration stong-arming Twitter and Facebook to remove comments they didn't like?

Joe Smith said...

'How is this not 100% applicable to the Biden administration stong-arming Twitter and Facebook to remove comments they didn't like?'

They didn't have to be strong-armed.

Those companies willingly worked with (and hired) FBI agents.

They were/are leftist companies and were happy to censor.

Ampersand said...

This one was unanimous because every single Justice could easily see how a contrary ruling would injure their ideological allies.

This ruling is going to be applied in both left and right speech contexts.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Joe Smith said...
'How is this not 100% applicable to the Biden administration stong-arming Twitter and Facebook to remove comments they didn't like?'

They didn't have to be strong-armed.

Those companies willingly worked with (and hired) FBI agents.

They were/are leftist companies and were happy to censor.


Actually, the emails back and forth showed they did have to be strong-armed.


And yes, this ruling, honestly applied, blows up the whole "gov't officials have a 1st Amendment right to tell companies to censor their customers" line used to defend teh Biden Admin's censorship.

We'll see if it is honestly applied, sometime in the next month or two

Drago said...

Breezy: "9-0 —> Durbin and Whitehouse hardest hit."

You can't speak of Durbin and Whitehouse being hardest hit without including their biggest cheerleaders, the Althouse LLR-democratical Brigade members Chuck, Rich and lonejustice.

rehajm said...

This one was unanimous because every single Justice could easily see how a contrary ruling would injure their ideological allies.

Given the current lack of opposition to the NY kangaroo court I tend to believe this is false. I believe Hillary's SCOTUS majority would have Soto Latinasplaining how the NRA has no rights...

Original Mike said...

"They didn't have to be strong-armed.
Those companies willingly worked with (and hired) FBI agents."


There's a whole lot of evidence of strong-arming, at least at the beginning. The finding of the Missouri court makes for eye opening reading (sorry I can't lay my hands on a link right now; I think the judge's name was Dourghty, or something like that.)

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Notably, this is a First Amendment case brought by the NRA not their usual Second Amendment battleground. Also the reason the ruling was u-nan-imous.

tim maguire said...

RideSpaceMountain said...Why would it need to be reiterated? Why are so many of these cases treading over the same real estate over and over again? Why are these government officials having to be fucking told what they can and can not do when they already know?

The big problem here is the 2nd circuit. The reason the Supreme Court had to step and and say "We meant what we said when we said it" is because the 2nd circuit tried to get cute in order to achieve an improper result.

RideSpaceMountain said...

"They didn't have to be strong-armed."

Matt Taibbi uncovered for our viewing pleasure hundreds of internal emails from some top decision-makers in these companies (including Jack Dorsey) explaining their discomfort working with the Feds in numerous scenarios. The issue is that other decision-makers (mainly revolving-doored Feds) within the same organizations were only too happy to oblige.

There's numerous communications showing the Feds also dangling carrots...they will never dangle the stick, the stick is always implied. Executive hesitation isn't enough by itself to indicate coercion, which is the point all along.

In other words, the federal government is now so powerful it needs only imply unconstitutional and illegal coercive power for it to get its way. I would add that it is exactly this type of hidden subjective and unrepresentative power that the constitution and nation were formed to avoid.

We traded London for Washington DC.

Original Mike said...

Here's the ruling in the Missouri case. The Biden administration was on the phone constantly browbeating the social media companies with veiled threats to fall in line. Even though they were ideological bed fellows, the social media companies did resist at first.

Doughty: "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country."

BUMBLE BEE said...

Void in CA,NY,MN,IL

mccullough said...

Sotomayor, Kagan, and KBJ believe Trump is going to win again.

Understanding that Trump could turn the tables on The Left, they got on board.

Enigma said...

@RideSpaceMountain: There's numerous communications showing the Feds also dangling carrots...they will never dangle the stick, the stick is always implied. Executive hesitation isn't enough by itself to indicate coercion, which is the point all along.


We are living in a sleazy government-industrial complex economy. Eisenhower's warning many decades ago was used to spread the military-industrial complex model to every business sector. This now includes technology, automobiles, healthcare, education, banking & investing (credit cards, 401Ks, and all retirement plans), and every sector with enough cash to matter.

The social media / tech firms have HUGE financial interests in federal partnerships and contracts. This includes Amazon Web Services, Microsoft's Office (now Teams/O365) monopoly, Google's mapping tools and their ability to track movement worldwide (i.e., CIA espionage), Meta's ability to discover and report social contacts worldwide, etc. Beyond the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the US has a total of 17 intelligence agencies. Dirty, dirty incest...

Given the current lack of ethics and selective law enforcement, any "private" firm will end up in the Elon Musk doghouse if they don't play ball. They'll also be subject to antitrust investigations for the next decade and bled into the poorhouse. The government started this following the AT&T breakup many decades ago.

See Mussolini's Italy for where we've drifted. US culture is too selfish and unstructured to compare to German history.

The 17 members of the Intelligence Community: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic

Yancey Ward said...

Quaestor's comment:

+100.

Iman said...

What are the consequences for the authoritarian Maria Vullo? Petty ideological bureaucrats need to be punished for their illegal actions.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

RideSpaceMountain said...
There's numerous communications showing the Feds also dangling carrots...they will never dangle the stick, the stick is always implied. Executive hesitation isn't enough by itself to indicate coercion, which is the point all along.

Doesn't matter.
On February 27, 2018, Vullo met with senior executives at Lloyd’s, expressed her views in favor of gun control, and told the Lloyd’s executives “that DFS was less interested in pursuing” infractions unrelated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.”

And that "carrot" was enough on which to lose

Iman said...

Correction, Breezy… little Dick Durbin and the lisping Sheldon Whorehouse hardest hit.

gspencer said...

"Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then..."

"And why do they think that is? Why would it need to be reiterated? Why are so many of these cases treading over the same real estate over and over again? Why are these government officials having to be fucking told what they can and can not do when they already know?"

BECAUSE,

The left refuses to obey/honor the purpose of the Constitution. Namely, to LIMIT, to CONTAIN, the created government. It wasn’t what government did that made America great; it was what government was prevented from doing that made the difference.

What set America apart from all other lands was freedom - for the individual. Freedom to work, to produce, to succeed and, especially, to keep the fruits of one’s labor.

America became great precisely because the stifling effects of too much government had been prevented.

And it will so again when this document of limitation is followed. Our problem today is the problem of all totalitarian regimes - TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

More quote:

As alleged, Vullo’s communications with Lloyd’s can be reasonably understood as a threat or as an inducement. Either of those can be coercive. As Vullo concedes, the “threat need not be explicit,” Brief for Respondent 47, and as the Solicitor General explains, “[t]he Constitution does not distinguish between ‘comply or I’ll prosecute’ and ‘comply and I’ll look the other way,’” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18, n. 7. So, whether analyzed as a threat or as an inducement, the conclusion is the same: Vullo allegedly coerced Lloyd’s by saying she would ignore unrelated infractions and focus her enforcement efforts on NRA-related business alone, if Lloyd’s ceased underwriting NRA policies and disassociated from gun-promotion groups.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

These bureaucrats need to serve time behind bars for deprivation of Civil Rights. Even for just threatening one's 1A rights. Put their skins in the game. I'm tired of drones following unlawful orders from the AG and President.

"I was just following orders" used to be understood as no defense when charged with crimes. Depriving Civil Rights is a crime. The DOJ and DOE (Education) both have whole flocks of legal eagles "enforcing" Civil Rights laws.

Heartless Aztec said...

What great news to wake up from a nap to. 9-0 is icing on the cake.

n.n said...

A gag order with a side of monetary damages.

Ralph L said...

NYT: "The unanimous decision allows the gun rights group to pursue a claim against a New York state official who had encouraged companies to stop doing business with it after the Parkland, Fla., school shooting."

Sounds so benign.

PrimoStL said...

Ralph L said, "Sounds so benign."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is. That's what they want, another 5 years of legal wrangling until a result that won't matter is foisted upon someone they want protected in a verdict that no one will hear or care about.

The systems we hold sacred are unable to move fast enough to affect the structural change necessary to keep the sacred system alive. They want it nice, benign, banal, plodding and meticulous. As a matter of fact, they're counting on it. We're all plugging holes with fingers and toes while the ship goes down by the stern after the dickheads who drilled the holes have long since made off with the lifeboats.

Leland said...

Well, that's one sign we are not as bad off as Canada.

Regarding Quaestor's comment above, the progressives could get their way and SCOTUS rule the Executive Branch doesn't have immunity. I know. They think it is only about Trump, but if the Chief Executive isn't immune, then neither are those that derive power through that office.

Bruce Hayden said...

“I hope this decision is a good indication of how the Court will rule on whether social media companies were engaged in unlawful censorship when they blocked (mostly conservative) posts providing information and arguments that ran counter to the views government actors were trying to promote.”

It wasn’t just phone calls between similar thinking friends, but also public suggestions that the DOJ might interpret § 230 of the CDA to deprive these companies of its Safe Harbor. Also suggestions by Pelosi that Congress might tweak § 230 to limit their Safe Harbor if they didn’t comply.

The Godfather said...

Ampersand, 1:41 pm said: "This one was unanimous because every single Justice could easily see how a contrary ruling would injure their ideological allies." Yes, that's right. And that's why we have these Constitutional provisions: It's NOT because the Framers favored my side or your side. It's because they realized that there is always a risk that the OTHER SIDE will sometimes control the Government and it's vitally important that when that happens there will be limits on what the Government can do with that power.

Say what you will against the Trump Presidency -- and there are plenty of things I could say against it -- I hope it taught SOME liberals that they can't count on ALWAYS controlling the Court to do their will.

Maynard said...

Slightly OT:

I wonder if the Democrats attack on Thomas and Scalia is backfiring among the squishes (Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett) and the lefties (Kagan, Sotomayor and KBJ).

Durbin, Whitehouse and Schumer are not as smart as they think they are.

iowan2 said...

Obama is quite proud of his" Operation Choke Point". That was the FEDs doing exactly what New York was doing.
Harassing financial institutions that did business with the 2nd amendment industry.

Drago said...

Maynard: "I wonder if the Democrats attack on Thomas and Scalia is backfiring among the squishes (Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett) and the lefties (Kagan, Sotomayor and KBJ)"

Its Alito not Scalia, but that mistake is understandable.

Its not backfiring with Roberts at all.

The attacks on Barrett's husband started today (surprise!) which may backfire with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

mikee said...

Under Obama weaponization of the federal government against political opponents became entirely too obvious. Fast & Furious comes to mind. It was intended to destroy the 2nd Amendment by Hillary and Obama.

If you're gonna use nefarious government means to destroy opposition, the stilleto blade of attacks with cutouts (such as between Hillary and the Russian Dossier, fed to McCain, et al.) can be much harder to detect and stop than the blunt club of documented direct requests from a government official for unconstitutional oppression.

Kevin said...

Does the way this ruling was phrased (“six decades ago…”) mean that there is no (qualified) immunity here?

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Kevin said...
Does the way this ruling was phrased (“six decades ago…”) mean that there is no (qualified) immunity here?

Not necessarily. Sotomayor threw in a line about the lower courts being able to look into the question of qualified immunity