The NRA's day in court

Tuesday, November 7, 2023

Welcome back for another day of Sentences! Today we'll be talking about ...

UP FIRST: National Rifle Association v. Vullo

CATCH UP: Netanyahu's latest comments on Israel's invasion of Gaza

—Rachel DuRose, Future Perfect fellow

UP FIRST

The NRA's day in court

Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Last Friday, the Supreme Court announced it will hear the National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which concerns two actions taken by former New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo. The first action seems legal, but the second action — a guidance issued after the Parkland, Florida, school shooting — may not be.

The lowdown: New York's State DFS is supposed to protect consumers by keeping an eye on banks, insurers, and other financial groups. At issue in the case is whether Vullo went beyond that mandate and ended up violating the First Amendment. Here's what happened:

In 2017, DFS opened an investigation into an NRA-endorsed insurance program that offered to cover civil and criminal legal costs for its customers who shot another person.

The issue was, the plans could arguably be seen as insurance against committing a crime. Three insurance companies that underwrote or administered the program agreed to stop providing this kind of insurance and pay more than $13 million in fines.

After the 2018 Parkland shooting, DFS issued guidance, signed by Vullo, which encouraged insurers to "continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations." This guidance did not explicitly threaten the insurers, but it did suggest that companies might face consequences.

The guidance may have violated the First Amendment. While the government and government officials have a virtually unlimited right to express their viewpoints, they may not use law enforcement officials to implicitly threaten someone.

The NRA says the DFS's guidance was a threat. The guidance, however, did not mention the possibility of any kind of enforcement action against an insurer that continues to work with the NRA.

The stakes: As Vox's senior legal correspondent Ian Millhiser explains, this case isn't just significant because of the First Amendment question. It's also important because it creates an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reshape gun law – or to potentially undermine the state's legitimate decision to shut down the NRA's illegal insurance program.

"This case is before a Supreme Court that is dominated by Republican appointees, and that has a history of handing down recklessly broad decisions benefiting gun rights organizations," Ian writes.

The 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which states gun policies must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," is just one example Ian cites as a case in which the Court issued a broad firearms ruling that had major repercussions on American life. At question is whether the Court will take this First Amendment question and use it to make gun policy.

"Hopefully, the Supreme Court won't impose such a catastrophic consequence on the people of New York because of a misstep by one of its former officials," writes Ian. "But, by bringing herself and her agency into a political dispute about gun advocacy, Vullo gave this highly partisan Supreme Court an opportunity to insert itself into what should have been a routine insurance enforcement action."

Read Ian's full story here.

To keep up to date on the latest cases and decisions by the Supreme Court, check out Vox's continuous coverage here.

CATCH UP

Netanyahu's latest comments on Israel's invasion of Gaza

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Late Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began to reveal some preliminary plans for post-war Gaza.

Netanyahu said in an interview with ABC that, following the war, he wants Israel to take "overall security responsibility" for Gaza for an "indefinite period." [ABC News]

US President Joe Biden met with Netanyahu before his Monday night remarks to discuss "tactical pauses" in the assault on Gaza. Netanyahu was reportedly more receptive to the idea than he has been to humanitarian pauses in the fighting. [The Hill]

Israel gave civilians still inside Gaza City a four-hour window to leave on Tuesday. Israel says its forces have surrounded Gaza City — home to a third of the enclave's 2.3 million people — and are poised to attack. [Reuters]

Netanyahu's poll numbers since the October 7 Hamas massacre have been grim. An October survey found that a staggering 80 percent of Israelis held him personally responsible for failing to prevent the Hamas attack; another found trust in the government at a 20-year low. [Vox]

If you have questions about the ongoing war, let us know here. And here's where you can keep track of all our developing coverage.

VERBATIM

🗣️ "I think Israel will, for an indefinite period, have the overall security responsibility because we've seen what happens when we don't have it. When we don't have that security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn't imagine."

— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [ABC News]

AROUND THE WEB

Paul Kessler, a 69-year-old Jewish man, died a day after he was injured in an altercation at two competing rallies — one pro-Palestine and one pro-Israel — in California. Reports say Kessler was involved in an altercation with pro-Palestine demonstrators when he fell and hit his head. [ABC7]

A person with Parkinson's was able to walk with ease again using an experimental spinal cord neuroprosthesis. The neuroprosthesis works by targeting specific areas of the spinal cord with electrical stimulation. [CNN]

Yesterday, WeWork — a provider of coworking spaces — filed for bankruptcy. WeWork was valued at $47 billion at its peak, but its bankruptcy petition listed $15 billion in assets, $18 million in debt, and $100 million in unpaid rent. [NPR]