WASHINGTON—In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association, reaffirming that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from coercing—or “jawboning”—private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government does not like. The decision, in NRA v. Vullo, reverses the Second Circuit’s decision dismissing the NRA’s lawsuit against the New York state official and sends the case back for further consideration. 

The following can be attributed to Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 

“This is an important decision that reaffirms the bedrock First Amendment rule that the government may not coerce others to suppress constitutionally protected speech. The ruling also appropriately recognizes that, while the government may not employ coercion, it must be allowed to attempt to persuade the public of its views. Our government could not govern effectively if it were not permitted to speak out, forcefully, on the topics of the day.”

Read the Institute’s analysis of NRA v. Vullo and a related case also heard this term, Murthy v. Missouri, here.

Read today’s opinion here.

Last year, the Knight Institute announced a new research initiative on jawboning and the First Amendment. As part of this inquiry, the Institute published a series of short thought pieces by legal experts, former social media platform representatives, and civil society advocates that considered the legal and practical questions raised in NRA v. Vullo and  Murthy v. Missouri. Read the series here.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, [email protected].