National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, violated the First Amendment by allegedly coercing entities to sever business ties with the NRA to suppress its gun-promotion advocacy. The NRA claimed Vullo used her regulatory authority to pressure companies into disassociating from the NRA. The Court vacated the Second Circuit's decision, which had found Vullo's actions permissible as government speech.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.
The Court held that the NRA plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation by Vullo through coercion of regulated entities to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
The case centers on whether Vullo's actions constituted a violation of the First Amendment by coercing entities to suppress NRA's gun-promotion advocacy.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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-promotion advocacy.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo that support the summary and concepts above.
The NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA.
The First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech.
Vullo's alleged communications—whether seen as a threat or as an inducement—were reasonably understood as coercive.
