Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

6  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

JACKSON, J., concurring 

* 

* 

* 
The  NRA’s  complaint  advances  both  censorship  and  re-
taliation  claims,  yet  the  lower  courts  in  this  case  lumped
these claims together and ultimately focused almost exclu-
sively on whether Vullo’s conduct was coercive.  See ante, 
at 6–7.  Consequently, the strength of the NRA’s claim un-
der the Mt. Healthy framework has received little attention 
thus far.  On remand, the parties and lower courts should
consider  the  censorship  and  retaliation  theories  inde-
pendently, mindful of the distinction between government 
coercion  and  the  ways  in  which  such  coercion  might  (or
might  not)  have  violated  the  NRA’s  constitutional  rights. 
That analysis can and should likewise consider which First
Amendment  framework  best  captures  the  NRA’s  allega-
tions  in  this  case.  See,  e.g.,  VDARE,  11  F. 4th,  at  1159– 
1175  (separately  analyzing  censorship  and  retaliation 
claims).