'A New York state appeals court on Thursday rejected the National Rifle Association's bid to end a corruption probe by state Attorney General Letitia James that the gun rights group has viewed as politically motivated. The unanimous decision by a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division in Manhattan came 1-1/2 weeks before a scheduled Jan. 8 trial, where James is seeking remedies including the removal of NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre.
[…]
In seeking a dismissal, the NRA accused James of violating the First Amendment for trying to silence its speech because she disliked what it stood for. It also accused her of selective enforcement, including through her unsuccessful effort to dissolve the group.
But the appeals court said James had probable cause to investigate and sue the NRA, citing her authority to enforce state laws governing nonprofits, and the "ample evidence of malfeasance" she claimed to uncover. It also rejected the selective enforcement claim, saying other nonprofits where dissolution had been sought agreed to overhaul their leaderships, while the NRA had not. Neither lawyers for the NRA nor James' office had immediate comments.'
The First Amendment ‘violation’ claim is both ridiculous and a lie.
[…]
In seeking a dismissal, the NRA accused James of violating the First Amendment for trying to silence its speech because she disliked what it stood for. It also accused her of selective enforcement, including through her unsuccessful effort to dissolve the group.
But the appeals court said James had probable cause to investigate and sue the NRA, citing her authority to enforce state laws governing nonprofits, and the "ample evidence of malfeasance" she claimed to uncover. It also rejected the selective enforcement claim, saying other nonprofits where dissolution had been sought agreed to overhaul their leaderships, while the NRA had not. Neither lawyers for the NRA nor James' office had immediate comments.'
The First Amendment ‘violation’ claim is both ridiculous and a lie.
