The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that if a financial regulator threatens banks or insurers to sever ties with a controversial group because of its viewpoint, that violates the First Amendment. The decision vacated a lower court ruling and clarifies that coercive pressure, even without formal orders, can be unconstitutional. It sets a high bar against using regulatory leverage to achieve speech suppression by proxy.
— This establishes a cross‑ideological legal backstop against government‑driven deplatforming via regulated intermediaries, shaping future fights over speech and financial access.
Robin Hanson
2026.01.09
85% relevant
Hanson contests proposals to shut down Polymarket by invoking insider‑trading/deceptive‑talk rules; that strategy directly intersects with the existing idea that courts limit regulators from coercing intermediaries (e.g., pressuring banks/platforms to cut ties). The article argues similar limits should apply to markets and journalism, echoing the legal concern this idea documents.
2025.10.07
100% relevant
Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in NRA v. Vullo vacating the Second Circuit and holding the NRA plausibly alleged coercion of financial institutions to punish gun‑rights advocacy.
← Back to All Ideas