• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump’s retribution campaign

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
76,850
Reaction score
80,371
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they’re winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official’s alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A year later, the court’s decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump’s attacks on them.

“Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,” said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case.

...Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how “Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately....It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we’re now seeing from the administration,” he said.

...Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals “have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers’ views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets...The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration’s coercive strategy,” Zick added."

Link

Looks like this decision is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
 
Good. But how many here wailed about the opinion when it was issued?
 
Good. But how many here wailed about the opinion when it was issued?

I'm glad you asked that question because it gives me a chance to point out that in the February thread on it at the time, I offered this:

I wonder if this could affect the Republican interest in withholding federal funds for colleges because they think they aren't curbing anti-Semitism to their satisfaction.
 
I'm glad you asked that question because it gives me a chance to point out that in the February thread on it at the time, I offered this:
I saw it because I went looking for hypocrisy. (edit: not that I think that counts, I'm just saying I saw it while I was searching...)

However, that specific situation would be based on federal civil rights laws, while Trump's temper tantrum over certain law firms is based on his fragile ego.
 

There was Napoleon saying people should be locked up because of it, but I doubt he's saying it now.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…