Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. 
VULLO 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 22–842.  Argued March 18, 2024—Decided May 30, 2024 

Petitioner  National  Rifle  Association  (NRA)  sued  respondent  Maria 
Vullo—former superintendent of the New York Department of Finan-
cial Services (DFS)—alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment 
by  coercing  DFS-regulated  parties  to  punish  or  suppress  the  NRA’s 
gun-promotion advocacy.  The Second Circuit held that Vullo’s alleged
actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law
enforcement.    The  Court  granted  certiorari  to  address  whether  the 
NRA’s complaint states a First Amendment claim. 

The NRA’s “well-pleaded factual allegations,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 
U. S. 662, 678–679, are taken as true at this motion-to-dismiss stage.
DFS regulates insurance companies and financial services institutions
doing business in New York, and has the power to initiate investiga-
tions and civil enforcement actions, as well as to refer matters for crim-
inal prosecution.  The NRA contracted with DFS-regulated entities—
affiliates of Lockton Companies, LLC (Lockton)—to administer insur-
ance polices the NRA offered as a benefit to its members, which Chubb
Limited  (Chubb)  and  Lloyd’s  of  London  (Lloyd’s)  would  then  under-
write.  In 2017, Vullo began investigating one of these affinity insur-
ance policies—Carry Guard—on a tip passed along from a gun-control 
advocacy group.  The investigation revealed that Carry Guard insured 
gun  owners  from  intentional  criminal  acts  in  violation  of  New  York 
law,  and  that  the  NRA  promoted  Carry  Guard  without  the  required 
insurance  producer  license.    Lockton  and  Chubb  subsequently  sus-
pended Carry Guard.  Vullo then expanded her investigation into the 
NRA’s other affinity insurance programs. 

On February 27, 2018, Vullo met with senior executives at Lloyd’s,