Wow. NRA v. Vullo is out. the NRA (represented by the @ACLU) wins on its 1st Am claims re jawboning by state official seeking to retaliate for the NRA's expressive activity by urging insurers not to cover the NRA.
J. Sotomoyor writes for a unanimous Ct.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
Given Vullo's posture, this is not the end of the case. It's a "these allegations, if true, support the First Amendment claim..." kind of thing.
But the 1st Am analysis in Vullo should matter a ton for Murthy and other cases about govt talking to platforms.
That's it for the day according to Mark Stern.No ruling about the Texas and Florida Social media laws, no ruling about jawboning in Murthy. Stern also calls the Vullo ruling "narrow." (I was too busy hitting reload on the rulings page to really read it yet.)
I think this doesn't bode well for my highly speculative theory that the Court might use a Vullo ruling to punt on Murthy, sending it back for lower courts to re-assess its messy facts in light of Vullo.
I've personally only seen that happen with rulings issued on the same day.
PS God bless the Supreme Court for issuing opinions in unlocked PDFs.
Why do legislators love to lock the PDFs for public copies of bills so much?? We the people need to highlight and annotate!
Yeah especially when it's a 2-minute job (or ten seconds with scripting) to re-enable the bits with MuPDF or other PDF toolkits.
Mostly it's from a misunderstanding of PDF tech and trying to prevent modifications... when annotations are removable losslessly later. >_<
