Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 10

6  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

Opinion of the Court 

ance law because it provided insurance coverage for inten-
tional criminal acts, and because the NRA promoted Carry 
Guard, along with other NRA-endorsed programs, without 
an insurance producer license.  The decrees also listed other 
infractions of the State’s insurance law.  Both Lockton and 
Chubb admitted liability, agreed not to provide any NRA-
endorsed insurance programs (even if lawful) but were per-
mitted to sell corporate insurance to the NRA, and agreed
to pay fines of $7 million and $1.3 million respectively.  On 
May 9, Lloyd’s officially instructed its syndicates to termi-
nate existing agreements with the NRA and not to insure 
new ones.  It publicly announced its decision to cut ties with
the NRA that same day.  On December 20, 2018, DFS and 
Lloyd’s  entered  into  their  own  consent  decree,  which  im-
posed similar terms and a $5 million fine. 

B 
The NRA sued Cuomo, Vullo, and DFS.  The only claims
before  the  Court  today  are  those  against  Vullo—namely,
claims that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing
DFS-regulated  parties  to  punish  or  suppress  “the  NRA’s 
pro-Second  Amendment  viewpoint”  and  “core  political 
speech.”  Id., at 231, ¶91, 234, ¶101.  The complaint asserts
both  censorship  and  retaliation  First  Amendment  claims, 
which the parties and lower courts have analyzed together.
Vullo  moved  to  dismiss,  arguing  that  the  alleged  conduct
did not constitute impermissible coercion and that, in the 
alternative, she was entitled to qualified immunity because 
she did not violate clearly established law. 

The District Court denied Vullo’s motion to dismiss the 
NRA’s First-Amendment damages claims.  The court held 
that  the  NRA  plausibly  alleged  that  “the  combination  of 
[Vullo’s and Cuomo’s] actions . . . could be interpreted as a 
veiled  threat  to  regulated  industries  to  disassociate  with 
the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action.”  NRA of Am. v. 
Cuomo, 525 F. Supp. 3d 382, 402–403 (NDNY 2021).  That