The NRA is once again going to the legal mat with the State of New York, but this time it is the State that is on the defensive. The fight is moving to the U.S. Supreme Court in a battle that has seen NRA confront New York state regulators over their efforts to restrict the organization’s access to insurance and financial services. This confrontation centers not on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms but on the First Amendment protections of free speech, potentially setting a precedent for the extent of government officials’ influence over the operations of regulated businesses.

The findings in the case could be so far reaching that the Justice Department is weighing in, underscoring the case’s implications for the broader enforcement of state and federal regulations. A USA Today article on the case noted that he U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, has weighed in on the case but hasn’t openly chosen a side. However, she has emphasized that even if the court sides with the NRA in the matter, the decision needs to remain a narrow one lest it disrupt other regulatory bodies in influencing the industries they regulate. Wish basically shows, she has chosen a side.

Concerns have been raised by a coalition of prosecutors who caution that a ruling favorable to the NRA could significantly broaden the scope for First Amendment-based litigation, affecting a wide range of enforcement actions, from high-profile criminal charges to regulatory oversight of health and safety standards.

But really, this case is about regulators trying to convince other businesses not to conduct business with companies or organizations they personally or politically don’t like. And that should absolutely not be allowed.

At the heart of the dispute is the NRA’s accusation against New York’s Department of Financial Services and its then-superintendent, Maria Vullo, for allegedly pressuring insurers and banks to sever ties with the NRA due to its Second Amendment advocacy efforts. The NRA argues that such actions were punitive and aimed at stifling the organization’s protected speech.

The case has traversed the lower courts, with the NRA challenging actions it deems as unconstitutional coercion that violates its First Amendment rights. These legal challenges were sparked by the Department of Financial Services’ investigation into the NRA’s insurance programs, which were deemed unlawfully marketed and led to significant financial settlements from involved insurers.

Vullo and the department counter that their actions were justified given the illegality of the NRA’s insurance offerings, basically, the NRA wasn’t licensed to sell insurance in the state, which is a legitimate point. But, the NRA’s policies also provided coverage for criminal defense costs, which according to the USA Today article, is oddly not allowed by state law. It seems, in a state that doesn’t want to require criminals to have to pay bond to get out of jail while awaiting trial, the law doesn’t allow for anyone else to cover your attorney’s costs, such as an insurance plan. Of course, if you’re poor, the taxpayers can pay for you through a public defender, but I guess that allows prosecutors to rack up wins going against underpaid, usually newer attorneys rather than going against experienced self-defense attorneys like David Katz in Florida, Evan Nappen in New Jersey or Emily Taylor in Texas.

The prosecutors concerned about the outcome of the case argue that siding with the NRA could hinder legitimate regulatory enforcement and open the door to widespread litigation against government actions.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome of this case may not only affect the NRA and New York regulators but also set a critical precedent for the balance between free speech protections and the regulatory authority of government officials over the businesses and organizations within their purview.