The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on Thursday in favor of the National Rifle Association, impacting First Amendment rights and potentially raising hurdles for state regulators seeking to influence advocacy groups.

This ruling permits the NRA to proceed with its legal action against a New York official who encouraged financial institutions to sever ties with the organization after the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school shooting, which resulted in 17 fatalities.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, representing the court, emphasized that government officials cannot manipulate private entities to penalize or stifle dissenting viewpoints. “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech,” Sotomayor elaborated.

The NRA alleged that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, not only pressured insurance companies to dissociate from the gun advocacy group but also threatened regulatory actions against non-compliant firms.

The crux of the disagreement revolved around a 2018 meeting Maria Vullo had with insurance market Lloyd’s of London. The NRA alleged that Vullo proposed refraining from prosecuting unrelated violations if the company assisted in targeting gun advocacy groups. Vullo attempted to downplay the meeting’s importance, contending that the NRA’s assertions lacked specificity regarding what transpired.

Vullo, who held a position in Democratic former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration, stated that her enforcement actions targeted an insurance product deemed illegal in New York: third-party policies sold through the NRA, which cover personal injury and criminal defense costs following firearm use. These policies were criticized by some as “murder insurance.”

The ruling offers some clarity to government regulators, regardless of political affiliation, regarding the extent to which they can exert pressure on private companies associated with contentious advocacy groups.

Both conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored separate concurrences, expressing agreement with the court’s decision.

In her six-page concurrence, Jackson emphasized the significance of the specific facts underlying cases like the present one in determining the outcome.

“In determining whether and how government coercion of a third party might violate another party’s First Amendment rights, the specifics of each case are paramount,” she wrote. “Distinct circumstances including who is being coerced, for what purpose, and under what circumstances may trigger different First Amendment considerations.”

The court’s opinion notably omitted any reference to another pending and interrelated case concerning whether the Biden administration exceeded its authority in pressuring social media platforms such as X and Facebook to remove content deemed as misinformation. Both cases were argued on the same day in March.

Although the NRA is typically associated with making Second Amendment arguments at the Supreme Court, it found uncommon allies in advancing its First Amendment claim. The American Civil Liberties Union, typically on the opposing side of the gun debate, agreed to represent the NRA before the Supreme Court.

Initially, a US district court dismissed some of the NRA’s claims but allowed its First Amendment arguments against Vullo to proceed. However, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this decision, determining that Vullo’s actions did not constitute coercion. Furthermore, it ruled that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity, a legal principle protecting government officials from lawsuits under certain circumstances.

The NRA primarily invoked a precedent set by the 1963 Supreme Court case, Bantam Books v. Sullivan. This case involved a Rhode Island commission that had warned distributors of potential police referral if they sold books considered obscene. The Supreme Court ruled that such “informal censorship” constituted a violation of the Constitution.