Regulatory 'advice' can equal coercion

The Supreme Court held that a regulator's informal guidance to financial institutions — telling them not to do business with a controversial group — can plausibly be treated as coercion violating the First Amendment if it is reasonably understood as a threat of adverse action. That transforms how state agencies can communicate with banks, insurers and other gatekeepers without triggering constitutional liability. — If accepted more broadly, the idea limits a common regulatory soft‑power tactic and reshapes how governments attempt to pressure private intermediaries to silence or punish speakers.