Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

1 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–842 
_________________ 

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 
PETITIONER v. MARIA T. VULLO 

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

[May 30, 2024] 

JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring. 
I  write  separately  to  explain  my  understanding  of  the
Court’s opinion, which I join in full.  Today we reaffirm a 
well-settled principle:  “A government official cannot coerce 
a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on 
her  behalf.”  Ante,  at  11.  As  the  Court  mentions,  many
lower courts have taken to analyzing this kind of coercion 
claim under a four-pronged “multifactor test.”  Ibid.  These 
tests, the Court explains, might serve “as a useful, though 
nonexhaustive,  guide.”  Ante,  at  12.  But  sometimes  they 
might not.  Cf. Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 598 U. S. 175, 
205–207 (2023) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment).  In-
deed, the Second Circuit’s decision to break up its analysis 
into discrete parts and “tak[e] the [complaint’s] allegations 
in  isolation”  appears  only  to  have  contributed  to  its  mis-
taken conclusion that the National Rifle Association failed 
to state a claim.  Ante, at 15.  Lower courts would therefore 
do well to heed this Court’s directive:  Whatever value these 
“guideposts”  serve,  they  remain  “just”  that  and  nothing 
more.  Ante,  at  12.  “Ultimately,  the  critical”  question  is 
whether the plaintiff has “plausibly allege[d] conduct that,
viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey 
a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or
suppress the plaintiff ’s speech.”  Ante, at 12, 19.