Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–842 
_________________ 

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 
PETITIONER v. MARIA T. VULLO 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[May 30, 2024]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Six decades ago, this Court held that a government en-
tity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of
coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression”
of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.  Ban-
tam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963).  Today,
the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials 
cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish
or  suppress  views  that  the  government  disfavors.  Peti-
tioner  National  Rifle  Association  (NRA)  plausibly  alleges 
that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.  As superinten-
dent  of  the  New  York  Department  of  Financial  Services,
Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her sti-
fle 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. 

I 
A 

Because  this  case  comes  to  us  at  the  motion-to-dismiss 
stage, the Court assumes the truth of “well-pleaded factual