I don’t get why people are downvoting this.

Yeah, the NRA sucks, but a ruling in the other direction would have had worse consequences considering it was a 1st amendment case.

Case summary:

The NRA promotes a programme called “Carry Guard”, which insures people against legal fees if they shoot someone. New York law prohibits the promotion of insurance products without a license and it is illegal for insurers to write a policy that pays out if the insured commits an illegal act. The Department for Financial Services pursued fines against insurers and the NRA for these violations. During its investigation, the director of the Department told insurers that they could avoid liability by helping her campaign against the NRA and taking an anti-gun stance publicly.

Legal reasoning:

Unanimous opinion of the court delivered by Justice Sotomayor. The director of the Department for Financial Service’s actions are illegal under the free speech protections afforded by Amendment 1 of the US Constitution because she used her political office to pressure others into making speech that they would not otherwise make.

So Vullo encouraged many insurers to cut off ties with the NRA at the very moment that she was pursuing a major investigation into three companies that did business with the NRA. And she allegedly offered to shield one company from additional liability if it took further actions against the gun organization.

As Sotomayor’s opinion explains, that’s not allowed.

Perhaps because the opinion is written by Sotomayor, and not by a more right-wing justice who may be eager to use the state of New York’s blundering treatment of the NRA as an excuse to shut down legitimate enforcement actions against the gun group, the Court’s decision also includes some language ensuring that the investigation into Carry Guard remains valid.

Interesting nuance and reminder to not get carried away with punitive justice even when wielding the law against someone deserving.