Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

Opinion of the Court 

As  alleged,  Vullo’s  communications  with  Lloyd’s  can  be
reasonably understood as a threat or as an inducement.  Ei-
ther of those can be coercive.  As Vullo concedes, the “threat 
need not be explicit,” Brief for Respondent 47, and as the 
Solicitor General explains, “[t]he Constitution does not dis-
tinguish between ‘comply or I’ll prosecute’ and ‘comply and 
I’ll look the other way,’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus 
Curiae 18, n. 7.  So, whether analyzed as a threat or as an 
inducement, the conclusion is the same: Vullo allegedly co-
erced Lloyd’s by saying she would ignore unrelated infrac-
tions  and  focus  her  enforcement  efforts  on  NRA-related 
business alone, if Lloyd’s ceased underwriting NRA policies
and disassociated from gun-promotion groups.

The reaction from Lloyd’s further confirms the communi-
cations’  coercive  nature.    Cf.  Bantam  Books,  372  U. S.,  at 
63, 68 (noting that the distributor’s “reaction on receipt of a
notice was to take steps to stop further circulation of copies 
of  the  listed  publications”).  At  the  meeting  itself,  Lloyd’s
“agreed that it would instruct its syndicates to cease under-
writing  firearm-related  policies  and  would  scale  back  its
NRA-related  business.”    App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  223,  Com-
plaint ¶69.  Minutes from a subsequent board of directors’
meeting reveal that Lloyd’s thought “the DFS investigation
had  transformed  the  gun  issue  into  ‘a  regulatory,  legal[,] 
and  compliance  matter.’ ”   2  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  29 
(Sealed).  That reaction is consistent with Lloyd’s public an-
nouncement  that  it  had  directed  its  syndicates  to  “termi-
nate  all  insurance  related  to  the  NRA  and  not  to  provide
any insurance to the NRA in the future.”  App. to Pet. for 
Cert. 224, Complaint ¶72; accord, id., at 306, ¶20 (consent 
decree  memorializing  commitment  not  to  underwrite,  or 
participate in, NRA-endorsed programs). 

Other allegations, viewed in context, reinforce the NRA’s 
First Amendment claim.  Consider the April 2018 Guidance 
Letters  and  accompanying  press  release,  which  Vullo  is-
sued on official letterhead.  Cf. Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at