Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 12

8  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

Opinion of the Court 

II 

As discussed below, Vullo was free to criticize the NRA 
and pursue the conceded violations of New York insurance
law.  She could not wield her power, however, to threaten
enforcement  actions  against  DFS-regulated  entities  in  or-
der to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advo-
cacy.    Because  the  complaint  plausibly  alleges  that  Vullo 
did just that, the Court holds that the NRA stated a First 
Amendment violation. 

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.    The 
Clause  prohibits  government  entities  and  actors  from
“abridging the freedom of speech.”  When government offi-
cials  are  “engaging  in  their  own  expressive  conduct,”
though, “the Free Speech Clause has no application.”  Pleas-
ant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467 (2009).  The 
government can “ ‘say what it wishes’ ” and “select the views 
that it wants to express.”  Id., at 467–468 (quoting Rosen-
berger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 
833  (1995)).  That  makes  sense;  the  government  could 
barely function otherwise.  “When a government entity em-
barks on a course of action, it necessarily 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 (2017).

A government official can share her views freely and crit-
icize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the 

—————— 
Second Circuit is free to revisit the qualified immunity question in light
of this Court’s opinion, the NRA still could obtain “ ‘effectual relief ’ ” on 
remand.  Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013).  In such circum-
stances,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  resolution  of  the  First  Amendment 
question is merely advisory.