CASE
SUMMARY
NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in NRA v. Vullo calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to determine that the National Rifle Association plausibly accused New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo of violating its rights to free speech and association. Vullo issued statements effectively threatening to punish banks and insurance companies via regulatory action if they continued doing business with the NRA based on its pro-Second Amendment views, a clear First Amendment violation that must not stand.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Vullo did not “coerce” the banks and insurance companies to end their relationships with the organization. The Second Circuit reached this conclusion by employing a four-factor test to decide whether Vullo’s actions amounted to “coercion” under the First Amendment. However, the proper approach would be to determine whether Vullo “abridged” the NRA’s First Amendment free speech and association rights—as she certainly did—not whether coercion occurred. The First Amendment forbids abridging these foundational freedoms.
The Supreme Court unamimously ruled in May 2024 that NRA plausibly accused Vullo of violating its First Amendment rights, a victory for NCLA. Then, in November 2025, NCLA filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear this case again and reexamine the Court’s qualified immunity doctrine, which frequently protects state officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights.