Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

III 
The  NRA’s  allegations,  if  true,  highlight  the  constitu-
tional concerns with the kind of intermediary strategy that
Vullo  purportedly  adopted  to  target  the  NRA’s  advocacy.
Such  a  strategy  allows  government  officials  to  “expand 
their  regulatory  jurisdiction  to  suppress  the  speech  of  or-
ganizations that they have no direct control over.”  Brief for 
First Amendment Scholars as Amici Curiae Supporting Pe-
titioner  8.  It  also  allows  government  officials  to  be  more
effective  in  their  speech-suppression  efforts  “[b]ecause  in-
termediaries  will  often  be  less  invested  in  the  speaker’s 
message  and  thus  less  likely  to  risk  the  regulator’s  ire.” 
Ibid.  The  allegations  here  bear  this  out.    Although  “the 
NRA was not even the directly regulated party,” Brief for
Respondent 32, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office 
to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business 
partners.  Insurers  in  turn  followed  Vullo’s  lead,  fearing 
regulatory hostility.

Nothing in this case gives advocacy groups like the NRA
a “right to absolute immunity from [government] investiga-
tion,” or a “right to disregard [state or federal] laws.”  Pat-
terson, 357 U. S., at 463.  Similarly, nothing here prevents 
government officials from forcefully condemning views with 
which  they  disagree.    For  those  permissible  actions,  the
Constitution “relies first and foremost on the ballot box, not 
on rules against viewpoint discrimination, to check the gov-
ernment  when  it  speaks.”    Shurtleff  v.  Boston,  596  U. S. 
243, 252 (2022).  Yet where, as here, a government official
makes coercive threats in a private meeting behind closed 
doors,  the  “ballot  box”  is  an  especially  poor  check  on  that 
official’s  authority.  Ultimately,  the  critical  takeaway  is 
that  the  First  Amendment  prohibits  government  officials 
from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress
speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private inter-
mediaries.