NRA v. Vullo Strengthens First Amendment Protections
In a unanimous decision that reverberates well beyond the facts of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed a cornerstone of American constitutional law: government officials cannot use their authority to punish or suppress disfavored viewpoints.
On May 30, 2024, the Court decided National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, a case that tested the boundaries of free speech in the regulatory context. The opinion—authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor—underscored that while public officials may express their opinions, they cross a constitutional line when their words or actions amount to coercion.
NRA v. Vullo — The Case and Its Background
The case stemmed from actions by Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). In 2017, DFS began investigating the NRA’s “Carry Guard” insurance program, which offered coverage for intentional firearm use and was alleged to violate New York insurance law. That investigation quickly expanded into the NRA’s broader insurance relationships with companies including Chubb, Lockton, and Lloyd’s of London.
According to the NRA’s complaint, Vullo used the Department’s enforcement powers to pressure those companies to cut ties with the NRA and other gun-advocacy groups. During one meeting, she reportedly suggested that DFS would overlook unrelated insurance violations if Lloyd’s and other firms stopped underwriting business connected to the NRA.
Soon after, DFS issued “Guidance Letters” on official letterhead encouraging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York to consider the “reputational risks” of associating with “gun-promotion organizations.” A joint press release from Vullo and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo echoed that message. Within weeks, major insurers ended their NRA-related programs and entered consent decrees with DFS, paying multimillion-dollar fines.
NRA v. Vullo — The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the NRA had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation. At this early stage of litigation, the Court did not decide whether Vullo’s actions were unconstitutional, but it made clear that the NRA’s allegations—if true—state a valid claim.
Drawing on precedent from Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Court explained that government officials cannot use the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” to suppress disfavored expression. Officials are free to speak, to advocate, and even to criticize—but they cannot use regulatory power as a weapon against those with whom they disagree.
The Court’s opinion emphasized that coercion can take many forms. A threat by a regulator need not be explicit to be unconstitutional; even a suggestion that regulators might “look the other way” in exchange for compliance can violate the First Amendment.
NRA v. Vullo — What the Decision Means
The ruling reaffirms the vital protection in a modern context where government influence often operates through informal channels such as “guidance,” press statements, or regulatory suggestions. The Court’s message is clear: when state power channels its authority through private enterprise, the Constitution guards against viewpoint discrimination.
Four themes emerge:
Government persuasion has limits. Officials may urge or encourage, but they may not coerce or threaten when private citizens or businesses choose to associate with disfavored causes.
Indirect suppression counts. Regulators cannot pressure intermediaries—such as banks, insurers, or social media platforms—to choke off disfavored voices.
Neutral enforcement remains essential. The government may enforce the law, but it cannot selectively deploy that power to silence expression it opposes.
The principle applies broadly. Though this case involves gun advocacy, the rule protects speech of every kind—political, social, and commercial—regardless of ideology.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence cautioned lower courts against fragmenting such cases into technical tests rather than assessing the overall context of coercion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurrence emphasized the need to distinguish coercion itself from a resulting First Amendment injury. She underscored that not all pressure is unconstitutional, but when it silences protected advocacy, it crosses the line.
The Role of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors in NRA v. Vullo
This important outcome reflects the sustained effort of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, which has long advocated for the protection of constitutional principles. The firm’s work in this litigation helped clarify—and strengthen—the rule that government power must never be used to stifle private speech.
The decision is not a victory for any particular ideology, but for the broader principle that free expression must remain free from regulatory retaliation.
NRA v. Vullo — Looking Forward
Since its release, NRA v. Vullo has already begun shaping the landscape of free-speech litigation across the country. Plaintiffs and courts are invoking its reasoning to address new forms of government pressure—both direct and indirect—on protected expression.
Notably, federal courts are applying Vullo to contexts far removed from insurance regulation and Second Amendment advocacy groups. A recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (September 30, 2025) relied on Vullo in assessing a claim of First Amendment viewpoint discrimination targeting pro-Palestinian speech. The court observed:
“The Court notes, however, that the general principles underlying Bantam Books, and, more recently, National Rifle Ass’n of America v. Vullo, 144 S. Ct. 1316 (2024), have significantly informed its analysis of Count I. … Because ‘a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly,’ Vullo, 144 S. Ct. at 1328, the Public Officials may not in effect regulate speech by means of an unwritten enforcement procedure implementing a facially lawful Executive Order, as if speech codes were permissible so long as they were not written down.”
This citation underscores Vullo’s reach: courts are taking seriously the Supreme Court’s warning that the government cannot cloak viewpoint discrimination in administrative discretion or unwritten policy. Vullo now serves as a key reference point in challenges involving everything from financial regulation to immigration enforcement and campus speech moderation.
By reaffirming that officials cannot punish speech by proxy, Vullo strengthens constitutional accountability across the board. It ensures that the First Amendment continues to guard against the subtler forms of censorship that emerge when government influence flows through alternate channels.
As these principles take root in new contexts, Vullo’s legacy will continue to grow—standing as a powerful reminder that freedom of expression endures only when government power is held firmly within constitutional bounds.