| National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 18, 2024 Decided May 30, 2024 | |
| Full case name | National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo |
| Docket no. | 22-842 |
| Citations | 602U.S. 175 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 49F. 4th700 (CA2 2022) |
| Questions presented | |
| Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government's own hostility to the speaker's viewpoint or (b) a perceived "general backlash" against the speaker's advocacy? | |
| Holding | |
| The NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined byunanimous |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch |
| Concurrence | Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo,602 U.S. 175 (2024), is aUnited States Supreme Court case resulting in a unanimous ruling that if Maria T. Vullo, the former director of theNew York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), attempted to coerce financial institutions in the state to refrain from doing business with theNational Rifle Association of America (NRA), then such conduct would violate theFirst Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Following theParkland high school shooting, the superintendent of theNew York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria T. Vullo advised banks and insurance companies in the state ofNew York not to provide services to theNational Rifle Association of America (NRA), an organization that lobbies in support ofgun rights in the United States. The NRA sued Vullo, alleging aFirst Amendment violation.[1] A three-judge panel ofUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the NRA, affirming a lower court's dismissal of the case. JudgeDenny Chin wrote that while government officials may not "use their regulatory powers to coerce individuals or entities into refraining from protected speech ... government officials have a right – indeed, a duty – to address issues of public concern".[2]
The NRA appealed the Second Circuit's decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 3, 2023.[2][3] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2024. The NRA was represented byDavid D. Cole of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Vullo was represented by former acting U.S. Solicitor GeneralNeal Katyal.[4]
The Court released its opinion on May 30, 2024, vacating the Second Circuit's decision and remanding the case to the lower court. JusticeSonia Sotomayor authored the Court's unanimous decision, favoring the NRA, stating that "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors".[5] The decision further held that government officials cross the line into impermissible coercion when they engage in conduct "that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech".[6] Justice Sotomayor explained that, "[a]t the heart of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society".[6]
Reconsidering the case following the Supreme Court's decision, the Second Circuit court found in July 2025 that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity for her actions. This decision was based on the fact that Vullo's conduct would not have clearly been understood to have violated the protections of the First Amendment as had been established at the time of her actions, given that her actions were directed at third parties' nonexpressive conduct as opposed to that of a speaker or a conduit of speech such as a publisher.[7][8]
Based on these findings, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court to dismiss the NRA's remaining claims.[7]