In National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NRA can continue its First Amendment lawsuit against Maria Vullo, the former head of New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS). The Court found that the NRA plausibly alleged Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA to suppress its gun-promotion advocacy.
Facts of the Case
DFS regulates insurance companies and financial services in New York, with the power to investigate and enforce actions. The NRA had contracts with DFS-regulated entities, Lockton Companies, LLC, and insurance underwriters Chubb Limited and Lloyd’s of London, to administer insurance policies for its members.
In 2017, Vullo began investigating the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance policy based on a tip from a gun-control advocacy group, finding it illegal under New York law. Following Vullo’s investigation, Lockton and Chubb suspended Carry Guard, and Vullo expanded her investigation into other NRA insurance programs.
On February 27, 2018, Vullo met with Lloyd’s executives, expressing her gun-control stance and suggesting DFS would be less interested in non-NRA infractions if Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA. Lloyd’s agreed to scale back its NRA-related business, and DFS would focus enforcement actions on syndicates serving the NRA.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the NRA’s claim, holding that it plausibly alleged Vullo violated the First Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA’s pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.”
The Court emphasized that while government officials can express their views, they cannot use their office to punish or suppress disfavored speech. Citing Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), the Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment prohibits using legal threats to suppress speech. The NRA’s allegations, if true, showed Vullo used coercion to punish the NRA’s advocacy, violating the First Amendment.
The Court dismissed arguments that the illegality of the NRA’s insurance programs shielded Vullo from First Amendment scrutiny and that accepting the NRA’s position would stifle government speech and enforcement efforts. The Court concluded, “where, as here, the complaint plausibly alleges coercive threats aimed at punishing or suppressing disfavored speech, the plaintiff states a First Amendment claim.”
Justice Sotomayor clarified that the ruling does not grant the NRA immunity from investigation or the right to disregard laws but reinforces that government officials cannot selectively punish or suppress speech. The case was remanded to the Second Circuit for further evaluation of the NRA’s claims in line with the Supreme Court’s opinion.