Misleading reports exist about several legal matters involving the NRA. This website presents key documents and facts — to set the record straight and allow the public to judge for itself.
NRA Appeals June 2022 Decision Dismissing Counterclaims Against NYAG
March 14, 2023 – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has appealed the New York Supreme Court’s June 10, 2022, decision dismissing its First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause counterclaims against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The NYAG filed a dissolution lawsuit against the NRA in August 2020, following her campaign declarations in 2018 that she would investigate the NRA if she was elected. She had described the NRA as a “criminal enterprise” and “terrorist organization.” The NYAG assumed public office and, exactly as she promised her supporters, launched a campaign against the NRA in April 2019, and, approximately a year later, filed a well-publicized lawsuit against the NRA – billed by her as the suit to dissolve the NRA. The NRA filed counterclaims in July 2021, and supplemented its filing in April 2022.
The NRA alleged that James’s campaign to shut down the NRA was motivated by a desire to silence its pro-Second Amendment advocacy. On June 10, 2022, the New York Supreme Court dismissed the counterclaims without allowing discovery. Citing cases arising in the criminal context, the Court contended that the NRA was required to show that the NYAG had no probable cause to investigate it to state a claim under the First Amendment.
In its appeal, filed in the Appellate Division, First Department, the NRA states that the "lower court’s opinion practically draws a roadmap for how officials can abuse state power to destroy the ability for non-profits to advocate for positions disfavored by the government. An official can run for office with the stated aim of taking adverse action to a silence a disfavored speaker."
The appeal continues, "Under the lower court’s decision, so long as the targeted entity has committed any technical infraction whatsoever, it would have no redress for the blatant violation of its First Amendment rights. This would mark a decisive and dangerous break with both federal and New York law."
NRA Files Cert Petition with U.S. Supreme Court; Seeks Review of Case Against Former
New York Governmental Official Tied to “Blacklisting Campaign”
Moment of Truth: Case Seeks to Clarify Protections of Free Speech in What May Become the Supreme Court's First Major "ESG" Case
February 7, 2023 – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) today filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of a controversial judgment issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in NRA v. Maria T. Vullo. The matter in question is one of the nation’s most high-profile First Amendment cases. First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh joins as counsel on the brief.
As the former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, allegedly wielded DFS's regulatory power to financially blacklist the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association, in order to suppress its Second Amendment speech. The lawsuit's allegations are explosive and include backroom threats by Vullo against regulated firms, accompanied by offers of leniency on unrelated infractions if regulated entities agreed to blacklist the NRA.
The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss during the course of 2018 – 2020. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court's ruling on qualified immunity, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA's claims – ruling, among other things, that in an era of “enhanced corporate social responsibility,” it was reasonable for New York's financial regulator to warn banks against servicing gun groups.
NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre says the case is a proving ground for America’s commitment to freedom of speech and association.
“In the face of the Second Circuit’s decision, the stakes could not be higher. This is a moment of truth for our nation’s justice system. The Court must clarify the limits on governmental officials and affirm the freedoms of assembly and speech,” LaPierre says. “We believe that New York’s conduct in opposition to the NRA’s advocacy sets a dangerous precedent for our entire nation.”
“The NRA is pursuing judicial review of a record that is equally disturbing and unconstitutional: New York state officials weaponizing the powers of their office against a political adversary,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “This case is important not only to the NRA but all advocacy groups that rely upon the protections of the First Amendment.”
The NRA alleges that under the guise of advancing a gun-control agenda dovetailing with so-called Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) trends, “Vullo: (1) warned regulated institutions that doing business with Second Amendment advocacy groups posed ‘reputational risk’ of concern to DFS; (2) secretly offered leniency to insurers for unrelated infractions if they dropped the NRA; and (3) extracted highly-publicized and over-reaching consent orders, and multi-million dollar penalties, from firms that formerly served the NRA.”
The Vullo-endorsed campaign began with an investigation into the NRA’s involvement with certain widely offered affinity insurance products. New York failed to investigate other similar insurance offerings – and was the only state to take such action against the NRA. The NRA was incorporated in New York more than 150 years ago.
Vullo issued official regulatory “guidance letters” on April 19, 2018, addressed on DFS letterhead to CEOs of banks and insurance companies doing business in New York, which effectively urged them to “sever ties with the NRA immediately,” says the NRA. The campaign destroyed crucial financial relationships and disrupted business, according to the Association.
This is not the first time state officials have leveraged their regulatory power to suppress a disfavored civil rights organization or choke off disfavored speech. The NRA's petition emphasizes a long line of First Amendment cases – from seminal decisions involving the NAACP, to the Supreme Court's storied Bantam Books decision – that forbid such tactics.
“The parallels between the NRA’s case and other landmark First Amendment cases are obvious: governmental agencies weaponizing their powers to penalize legal, constitutionally protected activity,” Brewer says. “The present ruling in the NRA’s case opens Pandora’s box, giving public officials unbridled power to attack those with whom they disagree.”
“The Second Circuit’s opinion…gives state officials free rein to financially blacklist their political opponents – from gun rights groups, to abortion-rights groups, to environmentalist groups, and beyond,” states the NRA in its petition. The Association argues that the Second Circuit has erroneously opened the door to unrestrained harassment of advocacy groups by state officials, and seeks to have it closed.
A host of legal experts and constitutional scholars, including the ACLU, have sided with the NRA on its case and recognized the harrowing implications of the actions taken by Cuomo and Vullo.
The ACLU previously wrote, “If Cuomo can do this to the NRA, then conservative governors could have their financial regulators threaten banks and financial institutions that do business with any other group whose political views the governor opposes. The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.”
Editorial in Wall Street Journal Supports NRA’s First Amendment Case
December 27, 2022 – An editorial in the Wall Street Journal, “The NRA vs. the Censorship 'Mob,'” explores the NRA’s First Amendment case against former New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo. The commentary was authored by attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, while Grossman is a senior legal fellow at the Buckeye Institute.
The NRA twice prevailed against motions to dismiss its First Amendment case against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Vullo. However, the Second Circuit recently reversed those holdings as they related to Vullo.
The controversy stems from the 2018 “blacklisting campaign” against the NRA, in which, the NRA alleges, Cuomo and Vullo attempted to coerce banks and other financial institutions from doing business with the NRA.
The authors state that the "goal was to punish the NRA for its gun rights advocacy." They write, "It’s fanciful to suggest that selling insurance to, or in partnership with, the NRA poses a threat to New York’s financial system. More important, the Constitution’s protections don’t amount to much if government officials can censor disfavored opinions simply by labeling them 'reputational risk.'”
They continue, "And even if such risk is real, empowering government officials to engage in censorship on that basis creates a heckler’s veto over controversial speech: Gin up enough online outrage or disagreement by officials or purported experts, and you can justify censoring anything or anyone."
The authors state that they support the NRA’s continued pursuit of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, noting that DFS has "broad discretionary power to regulate industries on which almost everybody depends. That makes it all the more crucial to ensure that it respects the Constitution."
NRA Seeks Rehearing in Connection with Ruling that Dismissed Claims Against Former NYDFS Superintendent Maria Vullo
October 6, 2022 – The NRA today filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking a rehearing en banc in connection with the court's recent decision to reverse holdings by the trial judge in the NRA’s First Amendment case against former New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo. In its September 23, 2022, ruling, the three Democratic appointees to the court dismissed the claims against Vullo individually.
The case stems from the 2018 “blacklisting campaign” against the NRA, in which, the NRA alleges, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Vullo attempted to coerce banks and other financial institutions from doing business with the NRA.
At the time, a host of legal experts and constitutional scholars, including the ACLU, sided with the NRA and recognized the harrowing implications of such actions. The ACLU wrote, “If Cuomo can do this to the NRA, then conservative governors could have their financial regulators threaten banks and financial institutions that do business with any other group whose political views the governor opposes. The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.”
Although the NRA’s claims against Cuomo are not encompassed by the September 2022 ruling, the decision will, the NRA believes, encourage exactly the corrupting effects scholars warned against.
“The Second Circuit’s decision regarding the NRA’s claims against Ms. Vullo misstates the facts, and offends the First Amendment,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to NRA. “The Second Circuit’s Vullo opinion endorses a radical idea: that financial regulators can selectively punish businesses to advance ‘public policy,’ including ‘social issues’ such as gun control. This is a derogation of the First Amendment that should not prevail.”
In its filing today, the NRA states that the panel should not have proclaimed that a prohibition on viewpoint discrimination by government actors is "antithetical to a healthy representative democracy." The NRA argues that the "panel confuses the role of government officials as regulators with their role as speakers."
The filing states, "The Supreme Court has been clear that when exercising its regulatory power, 'the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others[.]'"
NRA Responds to Court Ruling, Continues With “Vigorous Defense”
September 29, 2022 – As reported by Law 360, “A New York state judge in Manhattan said it's too soon to rule out an independent compliance monitor as a potential remedy in state Attorney General Letitia James' financial probe of the National Rifle Association, rejecting the gun organization's bid to dismiss newly added claims.”
Justice Joel M. Cohen of New York County Supreme Court issued his decision from the bench, keeping intact the latest version of James’ August 2020 lawsuit against the NRA. Earlier this year, in March 2022, the NRA scored a major legal victory, as the court struck the NYAG's claims to dissolve the Association. That ruling confirmed the NYAG cannot shut down the NRA or seize its assets.
The NYAG’s amended complaint was filed two months after that decision. In its place, the attorney general added a new request for relief – asking that an independent compliance monitor and a governance expert be appointed to oversee the organization.
Importantly, Justice Cohen noted that his denial of the NRA’s motion does not mean that he would grant such relief.
“Whether the [monitorship] relief will be appropriate is an entirely different story,” he said.
“Today’s developments have no immediate impact on the Association or its defense of this lawsuit,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “Having dismissed the Attorney General’s dissolution claims, the NRA now sought dismissal of additional claims by Attorney General James. Of course, the Association will continue to vigorously defend itself.”
The NRA argues that it has demonstrated a commitment to good governance and believes that the NYAG’s case was part of a political vendetta. NYAG James famously vowed to “target the NRA” and “investigate the legitimacy of the NRA as a charitable organization” while on the campaign trail in July 2018 – before spending even one day in office and without any evidence of wrongdoing.
She filed a lawsuit in August 2020 seeking to shut down the Association. In 2021, Attorney General James again touted her work to “eliminate the NRA” as a reason New Yorkers should elect her as governor.
NRA Comments on Reversal of Lower Court Ruling That Dismisses Claims Against Former NYDFS Superintendent Maria Vullo
September 23, 2022 – A panel of three Democratic appointees in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed repeated holdings by the trial judge in the NRA’s First Amendment case against former New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo – and dismissed the claims against Vullo individually.
The case stems from the 2018 “blacklisting campaign” against the NRA, in which, the NRA alleges, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Vullo attempted to coerce banks and other financial institutions from doing business with the NRA. At the time, a host of legal experts and constitutional scholars, including the ACLU, sided with the NRA and recognized the harrowing implications of such actions (see report from the Wall Street Journal).
The ACLU wrote, “If Cuomo can do this to the NRA, then conservative governors could have their financial regulators threaten banks and financial institutions that do business with any other group whose political views the governor opposes. The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.”
Although the NRA’s claims against Cuomo are not encompassed by this ruling, the decision will, the NRA believes, encourage exactly the corrupting effects scholars warned against.
“The Second Circuit’s decision regarding the NRA’s claims against Ms. Vullo misstates the facts, and offends the First Amendment,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to NRA. “The NRA is exploring its options, including certiorari to the Supreme Court, which recently reversed yet another Second Circuit decision by a panel in the Bruen case.”
Brewer added that the Second Circuit’s Vullo opinion “endorses a radical idea: that financial regulators can selectively punish businesses to advance ‘public policy,’ including ‘social issues’ such as gun control. This is a derogation of the First Amendment that should not prevail.”
In the news
Legal Facts
