National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo

The National Rifle Association sued Maria T. Vullo, former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, alleging she used her regulatory power to coerce insurance companies and banks into cutting ties with the NRA after the Parkland shooting. The NRA claimed this was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The Second Circuit dismissed the suit, but on May 30, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the NRA had plausibly alleged a coercive government campaign. The ruling allowed the NRA's lawsuit to proceed in lower courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the NRA, reversing the Second Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the NRA's allegations, if true, stated a plausible First Amendment violation.

Whether a government official can use regulatory authority to pressure private businesses into severing relationships with an advocacy group because of its political viewpoint, and whether such informal coercion violates the First Amendment.

The decision reinforced First Amendment limits on informal government pressure and regulatory retaliation. It clarified that officials cannot use their authority to indirectly silence disfavored political speech, protecting advocacy groups across the ideological spectrum from coercive state action.