A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that government cannot use third parties to censor, cancel, or deplatform groups with which it disagrees. The court held that the National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleged that New York’s Department of Financial Services head, Maria Vullo, had unlawfully pressured banks and other financial entities into debanking and stifling the NRA’s speech. In a world in which we see the Biden administration continually pressuring social media companies to suppress speech, the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the government may not use its powers—even indirectly—to silence speech is a crucial step in preserving our First Amendment freedoms.

In Murthy v. Missouri, a case decided just yesterday at the Supreme Court, the Biden administration was accused of hiding behind social media companies while using them to silence information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine hesitancy. The Supreme Court punted on that question, finding that the particular plaintiffs in that lawsuit were unable to bring suit because they could not show that they were themselves injured by the government’s actions. Yet as Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent, the substantive question at issue—whether government can coerce third parties into suppressing speech—is the most pressing First Amendment issue of our day. That makes one of the Supreme Court’s other cases from this term, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, one of the most important free speech cases of the decade.

In that case, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that government cannot use third parties to censor, cancel, or deplatform groups with which it disagrees. The court held that the National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleged that New York’s Department of Financial Services head, Maria Vullo, had unlawfully pressured banks and other financial entities into debanking and stifling the NRA’s speech.

Read More