The question
Whether the NRA's complaint states a First Amendment claim that a New York financial regulator coerced regulated entities to cut ties with the NRA to suppress its gun-promotion advocacy.
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the Second Circuit and revived the NRA's First Amendment claim against Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services. Taking the complaint's allegations as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court held the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated insurers and financial institutions to end their business with the NRA in order to punish or suppress its gun-promotion advocacy. A government official may share her own views and try to persuade, but she may not use the power of her office to coerce private parties into punishing or suppressing disfavored speech.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
Writing for a unanimous Court, Sotomayor held that the NRA plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation. A government official engaged in her own expressive conduct may criticize beliefs and try to persuade, but she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored speech. Drawing on Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the opinion explained that the First Amendment bars an official from directly or indirectly coercing a private party, through the threat of legal sanctions or other means, to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf. Taking the complaint as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the NRA's allegations that Vullo coerced regulated insurers and financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA stated such a claim.
Concurring
Gorsuch, writing alone
Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus notes the concurrence without stating its content.
Concurring
Jackson, writing alone
Jackson filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus notes the concurrence without stating its content.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.
Source: syllabus, Held
The complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Source: syllabus, Held
A government official may share her views and criticize beliefs to persuade others, but may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression.
Source: syllabus, Held
Bantam Books v. Sullivan stands for the principle that a government official cannot directly or indirectly coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.
Source: syllabus, Held
Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, and Gorsuch and Jackson each filed concurring opinions.
Source: syllabus, lineup