Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

Opinion of the Court 

B 
The parties and the Solicitor General, who filed an ami-
cus brief supporting vacatur, agree that Bantam Books pro-
vides  the  right  analytical  framework  for  claims  that  the 
government  has  coerced  a  third  party  to  violate  the  First 
Amendment rights of another.  They also embrace the lower 
courts’ multifactor test as a useful, though nonexhaustive, 
guide.  Rightly so.  Considerations like who said what and 
how, and what reaction followed, are just helpful guideposts
in answering the question whether an official seeks to per-
suade or, instead, to coerce.  Where the parties differ is on 
the application of the Bantam Books framework.  The NRA 
and the Solicitor General reject the Second Circuit’s appli-
cation of the framework, while Vullo defends it.  The Court 
now agrees with the NRA and the Solicitor General. 

To state a claim that the government violated the First 
Amendment  through  coercion  of  a  third  party,  a  plaintiff 
must plausibly allege conduct that, viewed in context, could
be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse gov-
ernment action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s 
speech.  See 372 U. S., at 67–68.  Accepting the well-pleaded 
factual allegations in the complaint as true, the NRA plau-
sibly  alleged  that  Vullo  violated  the  First  Amendment  by 
coercing  DFS-regulated  entities  into  disassociating  with
the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-pro-
motion advocacy.

Consider first Vullo’s authority, which serves as a back-
drop to the NRA’s allegations of coercion.  The power that a 
government official wields, while certainly not dispositive,
is relevant to the objective inquiry of whether a reasonable 
person would perceive the official’s communication as coer-
cive.  See id., at 66–67.  Generally speaking, the greater and 
more  direct  the  government  official’s  authority,  the  less
likely  a  person  will  feel  free  to  disregard  a  directive  from
the official.  For example, imagine a local affinity group in 
New  York  that  receives  a  strongly  worded  letter.  One