National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo is a United States Supreme Court case which held that if Maria T. Vullo, the former director of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), discouraged financial institutions in the state from doing business with the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), such conduct would constitute a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
| 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 |
| 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 by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch |
| Concurrence | Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Background
Following the Parkland high school shooting, the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria T. Vullo advised banks and insurance companies in the state of New York not to provide services to the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), an organization that lobbies in support of gun rights in the United States. The NRA sued Vullo, alleging a First Amendment violation.[1] A three-judge panel of United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the NRA. Judge Denny 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]
Supreme Court
The NRA appealed the decision of the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 3, 2023.[2][3] Oral arguments were heard on March 18, 2024. The NRA was represented by David D. Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Vullo was represented by former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal.[4]
The court's opinion was given on May 30, 2024, vacating the Second Circuit's decision and remanding the case to the lower court. The unanimous decision, favoring the NRA, was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stating that "Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors."[5]