The US Supreme Court is in the midst of a legal showdown, debating whether a former New York state official can be held accountable for allegedly pressuring financial institutions to cease dealings with the National Rifle Association (NRA) due to its gun advocacy, potentially violating the NRA’s free speech rights.
 This stems from a lawsuit filed by the NRA in 2018 against Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services. The case questions whether Vullo’s actions amounted to unconstitutional coercion or permissible government advocacy.
 The justices are deliberating the NRA’s appeal after a lower court dismissed their initial suit. The central concern is whether Vullo misused her regulatory power to compel financial institutions to cut ties with the NRA, following statements she made urging them to reconsider their connections with pro-gun groups after the Parkland shooting. The lawsuit alleges that Vullo’s actions aimed to stifle the NRA’s advocacy efforts by depriving it of financial services, constituting an “implicit censorship regime.”
 While Vullo argues her statements were within her rights of permissible persuasion, the NRA contends they crossed the line into coercion. The case underscores broader divisions over gun rights in America, with the NRA playing a pivotal role in shaping gun policies. This legal battle is just one of many involving the NRA, highlighting ongoing tensions surrounding gun control and free speech.
