Insurance regulator didn't violate NRA's 1st amendment rights, court rules
The defense’s lawyer argued that the NRA’s claims should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday ruled in favor of former New York Department of Financial Services superintendent Maria Vullo in a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association, finding that Vullo acted in good faith when she investigated insurance companies that had partnered with the gun-rights advocacy group.
Vullo’s attorney, Andrew Celli Jr. of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, appealed to the Second Circuit after U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy of the Northern District of New York in 2021 granted motions to dismiss several claims but allowed the NRA to move ahead with its First Amendment claims against Vullo.
William Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, who represents the NRA, argued that Vullo violated the First Amendment by threatening insurance companies with business relationships with the NRA.
“The NRA does not dispute that public officials have a right to speak about political issues,” Brewer wrote in his brief for the Second Circuit. “But they do not have a right to use the levers of state power to threaten regulated entities to disassociate from the NRA based on the latter’s political viewpoint and advocacy.”
The panel of Circuit Judges Rosemary Pooler, Denny Chin and Susan Carney reversed McAvoy’s denial of Vullo’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for entry of judgment in Vullo’s favor, finding that Vullo “was merely carrying out her regulatory responsibilities” in her interactions with the insurers.
Chin, who wrote for the panel, explained that the First Amendment’s prohibition against government officials abridging freedom of speech includes a prohibition against the use of regulatory power to “coerce individuals or entities into refraining from protected speech.”
“At the same time, however, government officials have a right — indeed, a duty — to address issues of public concern,” Chin wrote. “Here, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the NRA has failed to plausibly allege that Vullo ‘crossed the line between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce.’”
Celli argued in his brief that the NRA’s claims should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity, and the panel agreed.
“The complaint’s factual allegations show that, far from acting irresponsibly, Vullo was doing her job in good faith … She used her office to address policy issues of concern to the public,” Chin wrote. “Even assuming her actions were unlawful, and we do not believe they were, the unlawfulness was not apparent by any means. Accordingly, even assuming the NRA plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation, Vullo would be protected by qualified immunity in any event.”
In statements, Celli and Vullo each said they are pleased with the ruling.
“Maria Vullo was a superb public servant who did her job with integrity and passion,” Celli said. “This decision validates that service and protects her from harassing litigation brought by the NRA.”
In a statement, Brewer said the NRA is “exploring its options,” including potentially seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The Second Circuit’s decision regarding the NRA’s claims against Ms. Vullo misstates the facts, and offends the First Amendment,” Brewer said.
Related: