Supreme Court ruled 9-0 a NY regulator may have violated the NRA's free speech
On May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo that Maria Vullo, then-Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, plausibly violated the First Amendment when she informally pressured banks and insurance companies she regulated to cut ties with the NRA because of its gun-advocacy speech, following the 2018 Parkland shooting. Justice Sotomayor's opinion held that a government official cannot use the threat of regulatory sanctions to coerce a third party into punishing someone for protected speech, regardless of whether the government acts through direct regulation or informal "jawboning" of intermediaries. The case was sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
The rule is not so limited and its focus is on the substance of the governmental official's action, not on any magic words — a government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.
The Supreme Court held that the NRA plausibly stated a First Amendment claim against Vullo for coercing DFS-regulated entities to disassociate from the NRA.
Not yet contacted for this story.
Not yet contacted for this story.
On remand, a unanimous Second Circuit panel ruled on July 17, 2025 that former NYDFS Superintendent Maria Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right at issue was not clearly established when she acted, so the NRA's coercion and retaliation claims could not proceed. Source ↗