Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

3 

JACKSON, J., concurring 

II 
Whether  and  how  government  coercion  of  a  third  party
might violate another party’s First Amendment rights will 
depend on the facts of the case.  Indeed, under our prece-
dents, determining whether government action violates the
First  Amendment  requires  application  of  different  doc-
trines that vary depending on the circumstances.  Different 
circumstances—who is being coerced to do what, and why—
may implicate different First Amendment inquiries.  

In Bantam Books and many cases applying it, the coer-
cion  and  First  Amendment  inquiries  practically  merge. 
This is because those cases tend to follow a similar fact pat-
tern: The plaintiff claims that the government coerced a dis-
tributor,  purveyor,  or  conduit  of  expression—like  a  bill-
board company, television station, or book retailer—to shut
down the speech of another party that relies on that distrib-
utor, purveyor, or conduit to spread its message.*  Coercing
an  entity  in  the  business  of  disseminating  speech  to  stop
disseminating  someone  else’s  speech  obviously  implicates
the First Amendment, insofar as it may result in censorship
similar to the prior restraint identified in Bantam Books. 

But, in my view, that censorship theory is an awkward fit
with the facts of this case.  According to the complaint, Vullo
coerced various regulated entities to cut business ties with
the National Rifle Association (NRA).  See ante, at 3–5.  The 

—————— 

* See, e.g., Okwedy v. Molinari, 333 F. 3d 339, 340, 342–344 (CA2 2003) 
(per curiam)  (billboard  company);  R. C.  Maxwell  Co.  v.  New  Hope,  735 
F. 2d 85, 85–88 (CA3 1984) (same); American Family Assn., Inc. v. City 
and County of San Francisco, 277 F. 3d 1114, 1119–1120 (CA9 2002) (tel-
evision  stations); Kennedy v.  Warren,  66  F.  4th  1199,  1204–1205  (CA9 
2023)  (online  book  retailer);  Penthouse  Int’l,  Ltd.  v.  Meese,  939  F. 2d 
1011,  1013–1016  (CADC  1991)  (convenience  stores  carrying  porno-
graphic  magazines);  Hammerhead  Enterprises,  Inc.  v.  Brezenoff,  707 
F. 2d 33, 34–38 (CA2 1983) (department stores carrying satirical board
game); VDARE Foundation v. Colorado Springs, 11 F. 4th 1151, 1156– 
1157 (CA10 2021) (resort hosting advocacy group conference).