Unanimous SCOTUS decision

[J-BAR #18287]

In FAVOR of the NRA!  NY violated the NRA's 1st Amendment rights.  Saw the headline on Fox News a moment ago.  Good news, no matter how you may feel about the NRA.

 

 I'll buy the first round today!

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/prewrite-supreme-court-rules-nra-coercion-parkland-shooting-rcna151093

 

"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday's ruling. The NRA, she added, plausibly alleges that Vullo "did just that."

William Brewer, a lawyer for the gun rights group, said the ruling was a “landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom.”

When the case returns to lower courts, Vullo can argue that she is protected by the qualified immunity legal defense that allows public officials to evade liability if they were not on notice at the time of the alleged conduct that their actions were unconstitutional.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-favor-nra-key-first-amendment-case

 

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously decided that the National Rifle Association (NRA) "plausibly alleged" that the New York State Department of Financial Services violated the group's First Amendment rights by blacklisting the group.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the high court "holds that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s advocacy."

 

"The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," the court said, allowing the NRA to continue to argue its case, overruling the second circuit's dismissal of the suit."

 

Rather surprised that "The Wise Latina" ruled in favor of the Constitution. 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

OFS! 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Offer For Sale. ??

[J-BAR #18287]

I'm guessing it's "one finger salute", but I may be corrected.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

2 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

I'm guessing it's "one finger salute", but I may be corrected.

You're close 

[Badlands Bob #61228]

3 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

OFS! 

Something about Out F**** Standing!!!

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

8 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

 

In FAVOR of the NRA!

 

In favor of public officials not using their authority to badger and threaten an organization with whom they disagree. 
 

Total respect to Justice Sotomayor for writing the opinion in spite of her past decisions about 2A issues. 

[Subdeacon Joe]

35 minutes ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

Total respect to Justice Sotomayor for writing the opinion in spite of her past decisions about 2A issues. 

 

 

It shocked me, but it's a First Amendment case so even The Wise Latina was able to set aside her emotions and empathy and support the Constitution.  Same for Kagan and Jackson. 

[Ozark Huckleberry]

My question -- now what are the consequences?

[John Kloehr]

2 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

My question -- now what are the consequences?

Now the case goes back to the lower court for trial on the merits. Scotus took no position on the merits as at this stage the claims a viewed in the light "most favorable to plaintiffs."

 

As the case is tried and ultimately ruled on, the lower court needs to work in the framework laid out by Scotus. In simple terms, prosecutors can use coercion to drive a legal outcome but not a political outcome.

 

The trial will be looking at, identifying, and separating the amount of each reason for the prior coercion. There is no question as to if coercion was used, the question is when and where and how the prosecutor used coercion to force insurance providers to provide lawful policies versus trying to unlawfully disband the NRA.

[Subdeacon Joe]

4 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

Now the case goes back to the lower court for trial on the merits. Scotus took no position on the merits as at this stage the claims a viewed in the light "most favorable to plaintiffs."

 

As the case is tried and ultimately ruled on, the lower court needs to work in the framework laid out by Scotus. In simple terms, prosecutors can use coercion to drive a legal outcome but not a political outcome.

 

The trial will be looking at, identifying, and separating the amount of each reason for the prior coercion. There is no question as to if coercion was used, the question is when and where and how the prosecutor used coercion to force insurance providers to provide lawful policies versus trying to unlawfully disband the NRA.

 

Thanks for breaking it down like this. I'm always skeptical of the YouTube stuff that,  30 minutes after a ruling,  start screaming about A Major Win!

 

When I skimmed through some of it I thought,  "It's not a win yet, it just means that we haven't lost yet."