Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 4

4  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

Syllabus 

Letters and accompanying press release, viewed in context of their is-
suance, reinforce the NRA’s First Amendment claim.  Pp. 12–15. 

(c) The  Second  Circuit  concluded  that  Vullo’s  alleged  communica-
tions  were  “examples  of  permissible  government  speech”  and  “legiti-
mate enforcement action.”  49 F. 4th 700, 717–719.  The Second Circuit 
could  only  reach  this conclusion,  however,  by  taking  the  complaint’s
allegations in isolation and failing to draw reasonable inferences in the
NRA’s favor. 

Vullo’s arguments to the contrary lack merit.  The conceded illegal-
ity of the NRA-endorsed insurance programs does not insulate Vullo 
from First Amendment scrutiny under Bantam Books.  Nor does her 
argument that her actions targeted “nonexpressive” business relation-
ships change the fact that the NRA alleges her actions were aimed at 
punishing or suppressing speech.  Finally, Vullo claims that the NRA’s
position, if accepted, would stifle government speech and hamper le-
gitimate enforcement efforts, but the Court’s conclusion simply reaf-
firms the general principle that where, as here, the complaint plausi-
bly  alleges  coercive  threats  aimed  at  punishing  or  suppressing 
disfavored speech, the plaintiff states a First Amendment claim.  Pp. 
15–18. 

(d) The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional con-
cerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted.  Alt-
hough the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo alleg-
edly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after 
the NRA’s business partners.  Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA
from  regulation  nor  prevents  government  officials  from  condemning
disfavored views.  The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohib-
its government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish
or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private inter-
mediaries.  P. 19. 

49 F. 4th 700, vacated and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  for  a  unanimous  Court. 

GORSUCH, J., and JACKSON, J., each filed a concurring opinion.