Not a direct 2A case, but the implications are significant. From Law 360 at 1740739:
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review the National Rifle Association's appeal of a Second Circuit ruling tossing its lawsuit that accused a former New York official of violating the gun group's constitutional rights by warning insurers to consider the potential reputational harm associated with offering coverage for NRA programs."
Apparently, the statements made at the same time that the NY Department of Financial Services was conducting an investigation into the NRA's self defense and other insurance programs. The NRA alleges that the official threatened insurance companies with costly investigations, regulatory scrutiny and penalties if they did not terminate relations with the NRA. An official regulations guide of the Department also congratulated groups that had cut ties with the NRA and warned of repetitional risks to banks and other insurance companies that continued to do business with the group. And later that year the Department announced fines against the NRA on grounds that the insurance and two other programs sought to protect intentional illegal activities related to gun use.
The article sets out the litigation history in Federal court. Ultimately, the district court allowed the NRA's First Amendment claim to proceed as the official's statement could be viewed as a veiled threat. (nothing veiled seems to me). The Second Circuit reversed on grounds that the official had not crossed the line between efforts to convince and efforts to coerce, and the NRA appealed.
Don't want to read too much into this, but the 2nd Circuit ruling conflicts with a 2015 Seventh Circuit decision, which the Supreme Court declined to review, finding that "Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff Thomas J. Dart violated the First Amendment by demanding that credit card companies prohibit the use of their cards to purchase ads on Backpage.com, an online advertising platform that has been accused of facilitating sex-trafficking."
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review the National Rifle Association's appeal of a Second Circuit ruling tossing its lawsuit that accused a former New York official of violating the gun group's constitutional rights by warning insurers to consider the potential reputational harm associated with offering coverage for NRA programs."
Apparently, the statements made at the same time that the NY Department of Financial Services was conducting an investigation into the NRA's self defense and other insurance programs. The NRA alleges that the official threatened insurance companies with costly investigations, regulatory scrutiny and penalties if they did not terminate relations with the NRA. An official regulations guide of the Department also congratulated groups that had cut ties with the NRA and warned of repetitional risks to banks and other insurance companies that continued to do business with the group. And later that year the Department announced fines against the NRA on grounds that the insurance and two other programs sought to protect intentional illegal activities related to gun use.
The article sets out the litigation history in Federal court. Ultimately, the district court allowed the NRA's First Amendment claim to proceed as the official's statement could be viewed as a veiled threat. (nothing veiled seems to me). The Second Circuit reversed on grounds that the official had not crossed the line between efforts to convince and efforts to coerce, and the NRA appealed.
Don't want to read too much into this, but the 2nd Circuit ruling conflicts with a 2015 Seventh Circuit decision, which the Supreme Court declined to review, finding that "Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff Thomas J. Dart violated the First Amendment by demanding that credit card companies prohibit the use of their cards to purchase ads on Backpage.com, an online advertising platform that has been accused of facilitating sex-trafficking."
Last edited:
