Consumers’ Research, a conservative consumer watchdog, filed a brief to the Supreme Court supporting the NRA’s bid to appeal the appeals court ruling and asking the high court to hear the case, as the growing modern administrative state has led to “increased government involvement in all areas of American life.”

The group pleaded to the high court to consider how the increased use of pressure by government officials has put constitutional rights at risk, how that pressure amounts to an evasion of due process and administrative law, and the issue with allowing “government officials off scot-free” for these types of pressure campaigns.

“Governments appear to be wielding the varied tools of regulation more often to pressure private parties to take actions against third parties,” reads the brief, first shared with the Washington Examiner. “When those third parties are individual consumers, the risk is especially great. Those consumers lack the resources of large entities to fight the government’s intrusion and to find alternative services to replace those scared off by the government.”

“Those individuals whose views are unpopular will suffer most,” the brief continues. “These individuals may face discrimination and hostility even on the best of days from companies in rapidly consolidating industries, companies that often roll over against minor social media campaigns. When an official government regulator exerts even slight pressure on these companies, the consumer stands little chance.”

Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, said the group was “proud to back the NRA in its stand against blatant, despicable discrimination” in a statement to the Washington Examiner.

“Our Founders understood that an expansive, all-powerful state could easily crush average citizens who lacked the resources to fight back and sought to prevent the very abuses committed by this disgraced former New York official,” Hild said. “Government actors should not enjoy a shield of immunity when they exploit their authority to threaten, intimidate, or at all coerce private entities to harm fellow citizens just to satisfy their ideological agenda.

“By taking up this case, the high court has an opportunity to hold a nefarious public official accountable, limit the power of the administrative state, and protect consumers from authoritarian impulses that trample their constitutional rights,” Hild added.

The case NRA v. Vullo made its way up to the Supreme Court in 2024, after an appeals court had tossed the case, claiming that the NRA did not properly show it plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment. The unanimous decision reviving the case did leave open the door for Vullo to have immunity to the charges, something the appeals court found in its July ruling, tossing the case again.

The NRA, in its petition to the high court, asks the justices to “clarify when a constitutional violation can be sufficiently obvious to preclude qualified immunity even in the absence of prior cases involving exactly identical facts.”

Vullo has maintained that she committed no wrongdoing and that the allegations against her by the NRA are false, previously telling the Washington Examiner in a statement that she remains “immensely proud of the work that my team and I did at the Department of Financial Services.”

SUPREME COURT COULD SHAKE UP MAIL BALLOT AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES AHEAD OF MIDTERM ELECTIONS

If the Supreme Court decides to take up NRA v. Vullo for a second time, the ruling could have a significant impact on the ability to bring lawsuits against public officials accused of pressuring institutions and companies.

The Supreme Court will likely make a decision on whether to review the case in the coming months, once all briefs have been filed.