Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

1 

JACKSON, 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 JACKSON, concurring. 
Applying our decision in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 
372 U. S. 58 (1963), the Court today explains that a “gov-
ernment official cannot coerce a private party to punish or 
suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”  Ante, at 11.  I 
agree.  I write separately to stress the important distinction
between government coercion, on the one hand, and a vio-
lation of the First Amendment, on the other.  

I 
Coercion of a third party can be the means by which the 
government  violates  the  First  Amendment  rights  of  an-
other.  But the fact of coercion, without more, does not state 
a  First  Amendment  claim.  Rather,  in  addition  to  finding
that the government has crossed a line from persuasion to 
coercion, courts must assess how that coercion actually vio-
lates a speaker’s First Amendment rights.  

Our  decision  in  Bantam  Books  provides  one  example  of 
how  government  coercion  of  a  third  party  can  indirectly 
bring about a First Amendment violation.  As the majority
explains,  ante,  at  9–10,  Bantam  Books  held  that  a  Rhode 
Island commission’s efforts to coerce intermediary book dis-
tributors into pulling certain publications from circulation
violated the First Amendment rights of the books’ publish-