Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

61–63, and n. 5 (discussing notice issued in “official Com-
mission  stationery”).  Just  like  in  her  meeting  with  the
Lloyd’s executives, here too Vullo singled out the NRA and 
other gun-promotion organizations as the targets of her call 
to action.  This time, the Guidance Letters reminded DFS-
regulated entities of their obligation to consider their “rep-
utational risks,” and then tied that obligation to an encour-
agement for “prompt actio[n] to manag[e] these risks.”  App.
to Pet. for Cert. 248, 251.  Evocative of Vullo’s private con-
versation with the Lloyd’s executives a few weeks earlier, 
the press release revealed how to manage the risks by en-
couraging  DFS-regulated  entities  to  “ ‘discontinu[e]  their 
arrangements with the NRA,’ ” just like Chubb did when it 
stopped underwriting Carry Guard.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 
244.  A  follow-on  tweet  from  Cuomo  reaffirmed  the  mes-
sage:  Businesses in New York should “ ‘consider their rep-
utations’ ”  and  “ ‘revisit  any  ties  they  have  to  the  NRA,’ ” 
which he called “ ‘an extremist organization.’ ”  Id., at 213, 
¶51.

In sum, the complaint, assessed as a whole, plausibly al-
leges  that  Vullo  threatened  to  wield  her  power  against 
those  refusing  to  aid  her  campaign  to  punish  the  NRA’s 
gun-promotion  advocacy.  If  true,  that  violates  the  First 
Amendment. 

C 

In holding otherwise, the Second Circuit found that: (1) 
the “Guidance Letters and Press Release are clear examples
of  permissible  government  speech”;  and  (2)  the  Lloyd’s
meeting was “legitimate enforcement action” in which Vullo
was “merely carrying out her regulatory responsibilities” by 
offering “leniency in the course of negotiating a resolution 
of  the  apparent  insurance  law  violations.”    49  F.  4th,  at 
717–719.  The Second Circuit could only reach this conclu-
sion  by  taking  the  allegations  in  isolation  and  failing  to
draw reasonable inferences in the NRA’s favor in violation