Remember when a New York state official used her position to pressure financial institutions to stop working with the National Rifle Association (NRA)? Well, a federal appeals court seems to believe she should not be held accountable for blatantly violating the organization’s constitutional rights.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that former Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo is entitled to be protected by qualified immunity.
And we wonder why our government officials are so corrupt.
In its lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo “used [her] powers to coerce and retaliate against financial institutions that conducted business with the NRA to deprive the NRA and its members of their First Amendment rights.”
The court acknowledged that Vullo’s statements and guidance letters prompted these companies to reassess their business relationships with the NRA. However, the court decided Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not directly target the NRA’s speech. Instead, she sought to coerce banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the organization, which harmed the NRA indirectly.
In essence, the court pointed out that Vullo was targeting the NRA’s business relationships, not its speech, which means it wasn’t obvious that her actions violated the First Amendment. “Vullo is not alleged to have targeted a speaker (the NRA) or a conduit for the NRA’s speech (for example, a publisher) but third-party, regulated entities,” the court stated.
Recommended
In NRA v. Vullo, SCOTUS held that the NRA had a First Amendment claim against NY's finance czar because she coerced NRA's insurers to punish it for speech.
— Patrick Jaicomo (@pjaicomo) July 17, 2025
Today, the 2d Cir. holds it doesn't matter.
Why?
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
It's time for SCOTUS to end this lawless doctrine. pic.twitter.com/kfPkVcM4Bp
The court’s argument was predicated on the notion that Vullo’s actions did not violate a law that was “clearly established” at the time she was targeting these companies. To put it simply, the qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials unless they broke a law that was so well-defined that a reasonable official would know they were breaking it.
Since there is no law that explicitly says, “thou shalt not pressure financial institutions to stop doing business with a nonprofit you don’t like because you’re an anti-gun tyrant,” Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity. The court admitted that Vullo’s actions were likely unconstitutional, but since no other court had clearly said this, she cannot be held liable.
“[I]t would make little sense to hold that a reasonable officer in Vullo’s position should have known… that her conduct violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights,” the judges argued. In other words, if appellate judges could not agree on the issue until the Supreme Court actually established the boundary, someone like Vullo could not be reasonably expected to know it either.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how government officials get away with corruption — with a qualified immunity doctrine that makes it nearly impossible to hold them accountable.
The US Supreme Court did rule in the NRA’s favor last year. In a 9-0 decision, the court said the organization’s lawsuit could go forward. However, “The question of whether a plaintiff has adequately alleged a First Amendment violation is distinct from the question of whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity based on existing precedent,” according to the court.
The ruling was met with derision from pro-gun advocates. Patrick Jaicomo, a civil rights litigator with the Institute for Justice, argued that the ruling shows just how problematic qualified immunity is.
“This decision illustrates the broad reach of qualified immunity,” Jaicomo told Townhall. “While many incorrectly believe the doctrine shields police in dangerous situations, the reality is that qualified immunity shields all government employees no matter how bad their behavior or intentions.”
This is the crux of the matter. The government has become quite adept at protecting itself when it clearly violates our constitutional rights. Whether the perpetrator is a police officer, state official, prosecutor, or any other position, they should not be able to get away with infringing on our constitutional rights. Yet, this happens quite often because they know they will never face accountability. It is difficult to argue that we live in a free country when our government makes it nearly impossible for its officials to face consequences when they engage in illegal behavior.
The bottom line is that when “law and order” only applies to everyday Americans and not government officials, we are far from having a society that values liberty.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member