ACLU Supports NRA's Free-Speech Argument in Suit Against Cuomo Administration

[RugersGR8]

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourn...cuomo-administration/?slreturn=20180727002414
ACLU Supports NRA's Free-Speech Argument in Suit Against Cuomo Administration
In a proposed filing with U.S. District Judge Christian Hummel of the Northern District of New York, the ACLU said the gun lobby’s lawsuit against the state should continue because it addresses the free speech rights of the association.
By Dan M. Clark | August 24, 2018 at 06:57 PM

 

[MacFromOK]

In a proposed filing with U.S. District Judge Christian Hummel of the Northern District of New York, the ACLU said the gun lobby’s lawsuit against the state should continue because it addresses the free speech rights of the association.

Color me surprised and flabbergasted.

Oh yeah... and pleased.

 

[Dave70968]

Can anybody post the text without mandatory registration?

 

[RugersGR8]

Can anybody post the text without mandatory registration?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech
Maybe you can find what you want here on this link. There are links embedded in the article, one is the ACLU friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.



https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/nra-v-cuomo-aclu-amicus-brief

ACLU friend-of-the-court brief​

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Wow. Never thought thought I would see that happen. Makes me wonder if there is some kind of motive for then doing this. Can’t imagine what it would be though.

 

[Dave70968]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech
Maybe you can find what you want here on this link. There are links embedded in the article, one is the ACLU friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.



https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/nra-v-cuomo-aclu-amicus-brief

ACLU friend-of-the-court brief​

Thank you for those. The brief is particularly good. For anybody interested, the Introduction is only a couple of double-spaced pages, and lays things out quite clearly.

Analysis

Background: The State of New York, via its financial regulatory agencies, has put pressure on banks, insurance companies, etc. to not do business with the NRA. That pressure has included threats of investigation, consent decrees, millions of dollars' worth of penalties, and other measures intended to harass anybody doing lawful business with the NRA. As a result, many of those institutions have discontinued business relationships with the NRA, including the NRA's corporate liability insurer, which will no longer write the NRA a policy at any price.

The NRA has sued the relevant parties, claiming a First Amendment violation in that official harassment of its business associates causes a "chilling effect" (legal term of art relevant in First Amendment jurisprudence), with the result that its political advocacy--"core political speech," another legal term of art, and the kind of speech afforded the greatest degree of protection under the First Amendment--is stifled by official government action. New York, et al., have filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the NRA hasn't stated a claim upon which relief can be granted (a requirement for a valid suit--the "Cases or Controversies" clause of Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution). The ACLU has joined with an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief supporting the NRA's opposition to the MtDismiss.

The ACLU correctly recognizes that the principle for which the NRA is fighting could equally be extended to any political advocacy group, including itself, to wit: "If the NRA’s allegations were deemed insufficient to survive the motion to dismiss, it would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Public officials would have a readymade playbook for abusing their regulatory power to harm disfavored advocacy groups without triggering judicial scrutiny." Brief at 4. "It is important to note that, however controversial it may be, 'gun promotion' is core political speech, entitled to the same constitutional protection as speech advocating for reproductive rights, marijuana legalization, or financial deregulation." Brief at 8.

It should be noted that this is not a brief on the merits; this is strictly regarding the MtDismiss, to make the case go away before its ever heard (in fact, before the NRA is even allowed to conduct discovery, to demand that New York, et al., provide documents and other evidence). The MtDismiss also seeks to radically limit what evidence the Court is permitted to consider in deciding whether there was official action, and also whether a chilling effect occurred; the ACLU argues that such limits are not supported by caselaw (they aren't).

The rest of the brief is a detailed, point-by-point support for those arguments. Worth reading for those who want to see the caselaw, but it won't mean much to most people. Lots of specific examples from across the political spectrum (a good thing--when you can show a broad effect, it strengthens your argument, and also appeals to judges who may find this particular plaintiff distasteful). Some notes on standard of review (in motions, all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and the non-movant's claims are accepted as true for the purpose of the motion).