Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 2

2  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

Syllabus 

expressed her views in favor of gun control, and told the Lloyd’s exec-
utives  “that  DFS  was  less  interested  in  pursuing”  infractions  unre-
lated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insur-
ance to gun groups, especially the NRA.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. at 199– 
200, ¶21.  Vullo and Lloyd’s struck a deal: Lloyd’s “would instruct its
syndicates  to  cease  underwriting  firearm-related  policies  and  would 
scale  back  its  NRA-related  business,”  and  “in  exchange,  DFS  would 
focus  its  forthcoming  affinity-insurance  enforcement  action  solely  on 
those syndicates which served the NRA.”  Id., at 223, ¶69.

On April 19, 2018, Vullo issued letters entitled, “Guidance on Risk 
Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organ-
izations.”  Id., at 246–251 (Guidance Letters).  In the Guidance Letters, 
Vullo “encourage[d]” DFS-regulated entities to: (1) “continue evaluat-
ing and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may
arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion or-
ganizations”; (2) “review any relationships they have with the NRA or
similar gun promotion organizations”; and (3) “take prompt actions to
manag[e]  these  risks  and  promote  public  health  and  safety.”    Id.,  at 
248, 251.  Vullo and Governor Cuomo also issued a joint press release
echoing many of the letters’ statements, and “ ‘urg[ing] all insurance 
companies and banks doing business in New York’ ” to join those “ ‘that 
have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.’ ”  Id., at 
244.  DFS  subsequently  entered  into  separate  consent  decrees  with 
Lockton, Chubb, and Lloyd’s, in which the insurers admitted violations
of New York’s insurance law, agreed not to provide any NRA-endorsed
insurance  programs  (even  if  lawful),  and  agreed  to  pay  multimillion
dollar fines. 

Held: The  NRA  plausibly  alleged  that  respondent  violated  the  First 
Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business
relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promo-
tion advocacy.  Pp. 8–20.

(a) At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the 
recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free 
and democratic society.  When government officials are “engaging in
their own expressive conduct,” though, “the Free Speech Clause has no 
application.”    Pleasant  Grove  City  v.  Summum,  555  U. S.  460,  467. 
“When  a  government  entity  embarks  on  a  course  of  action,  it  neces-
sarily takes a particular viewpoint and rejects others,” and thus does 
not need to “maintain viewpoint-neutrality when its officers and em-
ployees speak about that venture.”  Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218, 234. 
While  a  government  official  can  share  her  views  freely  and  criticize 
particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, she may not use 
the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression. 

In Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, this Court explored