Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

would  reasonably  expect  that  organization  to react  differ-
ently if the letter came from, say, the U. S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York than if it came from an out-
of-state school board. 

As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and
enforcement authority over all insurance companies and fi-
nancial  service  institutions  doing  business  in  New  York.
See N. Y. Fin. Servs.  Law Ann. §§202, 301.   Just like the 
commission in Bantam Books, Vullo could initiate investi-
gations and refer cases for prosecution.  Indeed, she could 
do much more than that.  Vullo also had the power to notice
civil charges and, as this case shows, enter into consent de-
crees that impose significant monetary penalties.

Against this backdrop, consider Vullo’s communications 
with the DFS-regulated entities, particularly with Lloyd’s. 
According to the NRA, Vullo brought a variety of insurance-
law violations to the Lloyd’s executives’ attention during a
private meeting in February 2018.  The violations included 
technical infractions that allegedly plagued the affinity in-
surance  market  in  New  York  and  that  were  unrelated  to 
any  NRA  business.    App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  199–200,  Com-
plaint  ¶21;  accord,  id.,  at  207–208,  ¶¶36–37;  id.,  at  223, 
¶69.  Vullo allegedly said she would be “less interested in
pursuing  the[se]  infractions  . . .  so  long  as  Lloyd’s  ceased
providing  insurance  to  gun  groups,  especially  the  NRA.” 
Id., at 199–200, ¶21.  Vullo therefore wanted Lloyd’s to dis-
associate from all gun groups, although there was no indi-
cation  that  such  groups  had  unlawful  insurance  policies 
similar to the NRA’s.  Vullo also told the Lloyd’s executives 
she  would  “focus”  her  enforcement  actions  “solely”  on  the
syndicates with ties to the NRA, “and ignore other syndi-
cates writing similar policies.”  Id., at 223, ¶69.  The mes-
sage was therefore loud and clear: Lloyd’s “could avoid lia-
bility  for  [unrelated]  infractions”  if  it  “aided  DFS’s
campaign against gun groups” by terminating its business
relationships with them.  Ibid.