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.
Legal Facts
IN THE NEWS
NRA Board of Directors To Consider Proposed Consent-Judgment Provisions, Resolution of NYAG Matter
September 5, 2024 – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) today announced it is pursuing a potential consent judgment that aims to conclude trial proceedings in New York Attorney General (NYAG) Letitia James’ lawsuit against the Association, as directed by Justice Joel Cohen on July 29, 2024, at the close of trial proceedings. This weekend, the NRA Board of Directors will consider a package of proposals responsive to guidance issued by the Court, after it denied the NYAG’s request for the appointment of a government “monitor” to oversee the NRA.
If adopted by the NRA Board and approved by the Court, this package will conclude a six-year saga that began in 2018, when James vowed hostility against the NRA – then commenced a "corruption" investigation upon taking office. The NYAG’s lawsuit, which culminated in two trials, began with a failed attempt to dissolve the NRA and seize its assets in 2020.
“The full Board of Directors are involved in this process – to reach a successful resolution to the benefit of our millions of members,” says NRA President Bob Barr. “This weekend’s vote presents an opportunity to move the Association forward, free of governmental oversight or any other penalties that would interfere with the Association’s ability to achieve its mission. This is a momentous opportunity.”
In the final analysis, the NRA will pay no fines, collect awards from individual defendants, and have the freedom to pursue its mission. An expected final award of millions of dollars against former Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre will be payable to the NRA, as will proceeds from prior settlements with former NRA executives Josh Powell and Wilson Phillips.
Barr continues, “I’m optimistic the Board will approve this package – allowing the NRA to remain strong, secure and independent.”
Update: On October 4, 2024, the NRA and the NYAG submitted final packages of proposed relief measures to the Court. See the Legal Filings page for the complete packages.
NYAG Fails in Politically Motivated Attack to Dissolve the NRA and Install Monitor
NRA Eyes Additional Measures to Support Governance Reforms at Court’s Direction
July 29, 2024 – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) today commented on the conclusion of trial proceedings in New York Attorney General (NYAG) Letitia James’ lawsuit against the Association – announcing it emerged from the proceedings without the appointment of a monitor and remains positioned for a bright future.
Four years ago, the NYAG filed a “dissolution lawsuit” against the NRA – a case that sought to shut down the Association and seize its assets. Today, New York State Supreme Court Justice Joel M. Cohen in Manhattan rejected the NYAG’s demands for a compliance monitor and instead recommended the NRA and NYAG confer to consent to further governance reforms. In accordance with the court’s direction, the NRA will suggest additional reforms in furtherance of its ongoing commitment to good governance.
The NYAG sought something vastly different: a “monitor” that would have been an invasive and crippling remedy with financial oversight, access to employees and records, and an open line of communication with the NYAG. That proposal was rejected by the court.
In the Final Analysis: A Safe & Secure NRA
In the final analysis, the NRA will pay no fines, collect awards from individual defendants, and have the freedom to pursue its mission. An expected final award of millions of dollars against former Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre will be payable to the NRA, as will proceeds from prior settlements with former NRA executives Josh Powell and Wilson Phillips.
The court found no reason to remove NRA Secretary John Frazer from his position.
“We recognize the importance of the jury’s findings and will continue our commitment to good governance,” says NRA President Bob Barr, as he, “praised the Association’s millions of loyal members who never lost faith in the organization and its commitment to protecting freedom.”
“The NRA is moving forward full speed ahead,” says NRA EVP & CEO Doug Hamlin. “We have a mission to fulfill and elections to win up and down the ballot. This is a major step toward rebuilding the trust of the members, donors, industry, and our staff.”
A 10-day bench trial that concluded today followed a 24-day jury trial earlier this year, during which the NRA established the NYAG failed to prove self-dealing or bad faith by the NRA Board. The NRA challenged the NYAG’s narrative that any governance issues at the NRA are “persistent” or ongoing.
Importantly, reflected in today’s decision was recognition that the NRA established that it adopted new policies and accounting controls, displaced vendors and “insiders” who abused the Association, and accepted reparations for costs determined to be excess benefits. Most of these corrective measures – part of an internal investigation ignited by the NRA Board in 2018 – were underway before the NYAG even began her investigation.
Upon assuming office in 2019, Attorney General James launched an investigation and sought to put the NRA out of business. As part of her drive to destroy the NRA, on July 1, 2024, James requested a court-appointed delegate with sweeping powers over the Association.
The NRA’s defense focused on its compliance efforts and the organization’s commitment to good governance following whistleblower complaints that emerged in the summer of 2018. When the NRA Board was alerted to the allegations, it led an investigation and determined that certain individuals participated in transactions that ran afoul of NRA policies and procedures. Testimony confirmed the “tone at the top” of the NRA has indeed changed.
“Key facts and a chorus of voices established that the relief sought by the NYAG was unwarranted,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “The NRA organized its defense around an important reality: there was no evidence the NRA Board of Directors condoned the violations in question; instead, the board acted when it became aware of deviations from its own controls. That said, the Association takes seriously its commitment to stay in strict compliance with all controls.”
Read the Court’s Interim Decision After Non-Jury Trial here.
Courthouse News: NRA Expert Accuses State of Political Prosecution at NY Bench Trial
July 25, 2024 – Courthouse News reports that a non-profit governance expert for the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) "lambasted the New York attorney general on Thursday [July 25, 2024] for requesting a court-appointed monitor to supervise the group’s ongoing compliance efforts."
“A monitor in this situation is crazy, unprecedented,” expert Daniel Kurtz testified Thursday during phase two trial proceedings in NYAG v. NRA. “I’ve never seen anything like this happen.”
Currently a partner at Fox Rothschild LLP, Kurtz previously served as Assistant Attorney General-in-Charge of the Charities Bureau in the New York State Attorney General's office.
According to the Courthouse News reporting, during his testimony, Kurtz "accused the state of targeting the NRA for political reasons and asking for unreasonable relief."
“I see New York State both persecuting and prosecuting the NRA,” Kurtz said of this case, acknowledging the NRA is “politically unpopular” in New York.
Per documents filed in the case, the NYAG's office is requesting that the judge overseeing the bench trial appoint a monitor to oversee the NRA for a period of three years. Kurtz argued that such an appointment would result in both employees and members leaving the NRA in droves.
Kurtz testified, “There’s never been a situation, to my knowledge, in which a monitor has been appointed to reform the ‘nonprofit governance’ of an organization” – equating New York’s pursuit of the NRA to McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s.
As the report states, the NRA argued in court his week that the organization is on the right track, noting that it has recently hired a chief compliance officer and established new internal protocols.
Read the report here.
NRA Seeks to Lift Discovery Stay Against Former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo
June 17, 2024 – Following its Supreme Court victory in NRA v. Vullo, on May 30, 2024, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is pushing its offense. On June 14, the Association filed a request with the Court to move forward with its claims against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The NRA believes that discovery — especially contemporaneous documents and statements — will establish that Cuomo conspired with other high-ranking New York Democrats with the specific intent of destroying the NRA to impair its pro-Second Amendment advocacy. The filing is attached.
Beginning in 2017, Cuomo directed Maria Vullo, then the superintendent of the powerful Department of Financial Services, to launch a campaign of backroom threats, ominous Guidance Letters, and more, to force New York banks and insurers to blacklist the NRA. The campaign resulted in significant losses for the NRA as large New York-regulated insurers (Lockton, Chubb, and Lloyd’s) announced that they would cut ties with the NRA and no longer offer affinity insurance programs associated with the NRA. Cuomo bragged at the time, “[t]he regulations NY put in place are working. We’re forcing the NRA into financial jeopardy. We won’t stop until we shut them down.”
The NRA filed suit in May 2018, against Cuomo, Vullo, and DFS, seeking an injunction to stop the campaign, a declaratory judgment that defendants had violated the First Amendment, and damages to compensate the Association. The District Court held that the NRA had stated a claim against Cuomo and Vullo for violating its First Amendment rights. Vullo appealed, and the Second Circuit held in September 2022 that Vullo engaged in permissible “government speech” and her behavior was not threatening.
At the time, NRA counsel William A. Brewer III said 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.”
On October 6, 2022, the NRA filed a petition with the Second Circuit seeking a rehearing en banc in connection with the court's September 23, 2022, ruling. On February 7, 2023, the NRA filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which sought review of the controversial judgment issued by the Second Circuit in NRA v. Maria T. Vullo.
On November 3, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert review of the NRA's First Amendment case.
Following oral argument on March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed, 9-0, in an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor. It the Court “reaffirm[ed]” what it said “[s]ix decades ago” in an earlier case, Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963): “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
The NRA contends that the Supreme Court’s ruling dooms any effort Cuomo might make to dismiss the First Amendment claims against him. After all, he admitted directing Vullo to launch the campaign, and confessed his retaliatory intent in numerous social media posts tying New York’s regulatory actions against the NRA to its First Amendment-protected speech. In addition to damages, the NRA contends it is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief taking down DFS’s Guidance Letters warning businesses to avoid the NRA because of its pro-gun advocacy and rescinding a bar on the NRA marketing affinity insurance in New York.
“In the wake of a unanimous Supreme Court verdict in its favor, the NRA will pursue those responsible for the ‘blacklisting campaign,’ including former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The record demonstrates a shocking reality: the governor weaponized the power of his office, using DFS as an instrument to harm the NRA for its political speech – in violation of the Association’s First Amendment rights.”
Brewer continues, “The Supreme Court decision reaffirms what has been clear for decades: government officials cannot target speakers based on their speech. We look forward to prosecuting the Association's claims in Court and recovering appropriate relief for the Association.”
NRA Secures Landmark Legal Victory; Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against Former New York Regulator
May 30, 2024 – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a historic legal victory today in one of the most closely followed First Amendment cases in the nation.
In a stinging rebuke of New York’s “blacklisting campaign” against the NRA, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for the NRA in its case against former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo. The decision remands the NRA’s case to the lower court – reviving the NRA’s claims that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights when she urged banks and insurers to cut ties with the NRA in 2018.
“This victory is a win for the NRA in the fight to protect freedom,” says NRA President Bob Barr. “This is a historic moment for the NRA in its stand against governmental overreach. Let this be clear: the voice of the NRA membership is as loud and influential as ever. Regulators are now on notice: this is a win for not only the NRA, but every organization who might otherwise suffer from an abuse of government power.”
The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 2024. The case is one of the most high-profile First Amendment cases in recent memory, with dozens of legal experts and constitutional scholars, including the ACLU, siding with the NRA.
“This is a moment of truth,” says NRA EVP & CEO Doug Hamlin. “The decision underscores the importance of this principled fight. When it comes to defending our members and their freedoms, the NRA will never back down.”
The opinion of the court, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, states, “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment… Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”
“This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy. This is a victory for the NRA’s millions of members and the freedoms that define America.”
In the opinion, Justice Sotomayor writes that Vullo was “free to criticize the NRA” but “could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.”
Justice Sotomayor continues, “One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control.”
The History of the Case
In a May 2018 lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo, at the urging of Governor Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and conspired to use DFS’ regulatory power to “financially blacklist” the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.
The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court’s ruling, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA’s claims. The court ruled that in an era of “enhanced corporate social responsibility,” it was reasonable for New York's financial regulator to warn banks and insurance companies against servicing pro-gun groups based on the supposed “social backlash” against those groups’ advocacy. The court also ruled that Vullo’s guidance – written on her official letterhead and invoking her regulatory powers – was not a directive to the institutions she regulated, but rather a mere expression of her political preferences.
On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. On November 3, 2023, the Court granted review of the case.
Twenty-two amicus briefs representing more than 190 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRA’s position, including a filing by several of the nation’s foremost First Amendment scholars. The amicus briefs also included a joint filing by dozens of congressional Republicans and filings by 25 state attorneys general. The support came from across the political spectrum.
On Monday, March 18, 2024, the Court heard oral arguments in the case. ACLU National Legal Director and NRA counsel David Cole argued that Vullo and other New York officials abused their authority in violation of the First Amendment, telling the justices: “There's no question on this record that they encouraged people to punish the NRA.” Cole said, “It was a campaign by the state’s highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy.”
Eugene Volokh joined Brewer and the ACLU in representing the NRA, along with Brewer partners Sarah B. Rogers and Noah Peters.
NRA Scores Legal Victory in Dispute with
DC Attorney General
April 17, 2024 – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) today announced a legal victory in a high-profile governance matter brought by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (DCAG).
Filed by the DCAG on August 6, 2020, in obvious coordination with a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General in New York, the suit alleged that the NRA misused tens of millions of dollars of NRA Foundation funds. In response, the NRA challenged the claims as politically motivated and stated that it acted appropriately at all times. On April 16, 2024, the NRA and NRA Foundation entered into a consent order, whereby the DCAG dismisses all claims against the NRA. The order contains no adverse finding against the NRA and no allegations regarding the use of funds of the NRA Foundation. There are no fines or penalties whatsoever against the NRA.
Discovery proved that all funds received from the NRA Foundation were applied exclusively in furtherance of its charitable programs and that there was no misuse of Foundation monies.
“This is further proof of the NRA’s commitment to good governance,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “The NRA confronted this political attack – and emerges from this lawsuit strong, secure, and vindicated. The NRA and NRA Foundation are fully committed to pursuing their world-class firearms education, training, and safety programs.”
The NRA Foundation supports a wide range of public programs focused on firearms safety and training, law enforcement education, hunter safety, and youth. Its Eddie Eagle GunSafe program has taught gun safety to more than 32 million children.
The NRA will continue to administer the NRA Foundation's programs. The order in no way limits the NRA Foundation’s ability to amend its articles, bylaws, or other organizational documents.
“This outcome is a resounding win for the NRA and for the NRA Foundation, too. Both remain positioned to meet their respective goals and mission,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The result should bring an abrupt end to allegations against NRA board leadership. The resolution also supports the NRA Foundation as it pursues the highest of ethical and organizational standards – so donors can give with confidence, as always.”
With respect to the genesis of the lawsuit, Brewer said: “As even the most casual observers agree, this was a politically-motivated action – filed in coordination with the NYAG. The NRA is committed to protecting itself from adverse actions by government officials using their power to attack the NRA for its Second Amendment advocacy.”
While the consent order resolves the DCAG’s claims against the NRA and NRA Foundation, it has no bearing on the NRA’s other legal matters, including its pursuit of government officials who combined to destroy the NRA.
The NRA participated in oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 2024, in support of its lawsuit against a former New York state financial regulator. The case has earned the support of legal experts and constitutional scholars, including the ACLU.
“The NRA remains confident in its position and standing as America’s greatest defender of Second Amendment freedom,” Cotton says. “The momentum continues to build for the Association and its millions of members.”
NRA Responds to DCAG Media Statements:
“Distorted and Untruthful”
April 17, 2024 – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) responded today to Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb, following a consent order between the DCAG, NRA and NRA Foundation.
“There are two words to describe the statements from Attorney General Schwalb in response to today’s announcement in connection with the settlement agreement among the parties: distorted and untruthful,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “The statements falsely say the DCAG lawsuit filed in August 2020 caused the NRA to repay loans to the NRA Foundation. The commitment to repay the final loan in question came in January 2020. The DCAG ‘spins’ today’s settlement in avoidance of the facts: the DCAG long ago abandoned any claims of wrongdoing against the NRA. Even by DC standards, this is rank political gamesmanship – an after-the-fact justification for a failed lawsuit by these officials.”
FACT: The DCAG’s statement that the NRA used NRA Foundation funds for an “unchecked piggy bank” is contradicted by the public record, the settlement agreement, and the DCAG’s own experts. See Plaintiff’s Response to NRA’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts dated July 7, 2023, at p. 14 (admitting that it is “[u]ndisputed” that “[n]either of the District’s experts opined that the NRA did anything wrong or illegal.”).
FACT: The settlement contains NO findings or admissions the NRA Foundation misused funds, or that its monies did not support its charitable programs.
FACT: The NRA utilized NRA Foundation grants and loan for proper purposes and acted appropriately at all times. The District never even alleged – much less proved – that the NRA ever violated the Nonprofit Corporations Act.
FACT: The NRA executed an agreement to repay the NRA Foundation for a final fair-market loan in January 2020 – months before the DCAG filed its lawsuit.
FACT: Although the District in its lawsuit sought extraordinary remedies, such as a constructive trust, long-term monitorship, and substantial revisions to its Bylaws, the District abandoned these remedies because the facts did not support them.
FACT: In the face of these facts, the DCAG settled its lawsuit – abandoning all claims against the NRA and NRA Foundation.
NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members
March 29, 2024 – The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) announced a major legal victory today, as a Texas court enjoined the “pistol brace rule” from taking effect against its members. The legal win is the most expansive ruling of its kind to date – protecting millions of NRA members across the nation.
The NRA filed suit in the Northern District of Texas on July 3, 2023 against the ATF, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach, in his official capacity as director of ATF (“Defendants”), seeking to enjoin the ATF’s unconstitutional rule, which would have reversed its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.
Today, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay agreed with the NRA that it has “associational standing” to pursue this case because it is a traditional membership organization whose members rely on the NRA to protect their gun rights. In other words, the NRA is the voice of its members. Further, Judge Lindsay applied the Fifth Circuit’s earlier holding in Mock v. Garland that the ATF failed to go through an appropriate notice-and-comment period before issuing its “pistol brace rule,” making major revisions to the rule without acknowledging the hundreds of thousands of negative comments from the NRA and its members across the nation, thus rendering it likely unlawful.
“This is a major victory for the NRA, its members, and all who believe in Second Amendment freedom,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “From day one, we vowed to fight back against President Biden and his rogue regulators – and to defeat this unlawful measure.”
The legal win protects millions of NRA members across the nation who seek to use a pistol brace to safely use a firearm, including many lawful gun owners with disabilities. The ATF’s unconstitutional rule would have reversed its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.
NRA Defends Freedom in Supreme Court Argument
The NRA’s commitment to freedom was on full display again this week.
On Monday, March 18, the Court heard oral arguments in the NRA v. Maria T. Vullo case – one of the nation’s most important First Amendment matters. Vullo is the former financial regulator in New York who tried to “financially blacklist” the NRA in 2018.
The NRA argues that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and used the regulatory power of the Department of Financial Services (DFS) to financially blacklist the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to avoid ties with the Association in order to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech.
The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.
In response, on May 11, 2018, the NRA filed suit to enjoin the campaign and for money damages. After winning in the trial court, the NRA's case was dismissed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Thereafter, the Association took its case to the highest court in the land. The NRA is joined by the ACLU, legal experts, constitutional scholars, and 25 states in opposing Vullo’s actions.
ACLU National Legal Director and NRA counsel David Cole argued on Monday that Vullo and other New York officials abused their authority in violation of the First Amendment, telling the justices: “There's no question on this record that they encouraged people to punish the NRA." Cole said, “It was a campaign by the state’s highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy.”
The U.S. Department of Justice also sided with the NRA, as Assistant to the Solicitor General Ephraim McDowell argued that the court should find that New York officials violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights.
Twenty-two amicus briefs representing more than 190 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRA’s position, including a filing by several of the nation’s foremost First Amendment scholars. The amicus briefs also include a joint filing by dozens of congressional Republicans and filings by 25 state attorneys general. The support came from across the political spectrum.
“This is the moment of truth for the NRA and its millions of members," says NRA interim EVP & CEO Andrew Arulanandam. "We were honored to be before the Supreme Court – protecting our First Amendment rights to defend Second Amendment freedom. We will never shrink from the fight to defend the values and freedoms of America."
NRA counsel William A. Brewer III said, “This case is important to the NRA and all advocacy organizations who rely upon the protections of the First Amendment. Every advocacy group will benefit if the Court reminds government officials that they cannot use intimidation tactics, backdoor censorship, or regulatory blacklisting to silence those with whom they disagree.”
George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley has said NRA v. Vullo “could prove to be one of the most important free speech cases of the decade.”
A ruling is expected this June.
The Stage is Set: A Moment of Truth
March 17, 2024 – Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are set for Monday, March 18, in the NRA v. Maria T. Vullo case. The NRA received support from across the political spectrum – as legal experts, constitutional scholars, and advocacy groups eye one of the most important First Amendment cases in history.
“This case is important to the NRA and all advocacy organizations who rely upon the protections of the First Amendment,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “Many groups will benefit when the Court reminds government officials that they cannot use intimidation tactics, backdoor censorship, or regulatory blacklisting to silence those with whom they disagree.”
Brewer adds, "Clearly, the NRA suffered financially as a result of the 'blacklisting campaign' undertaken by Vullo at the behest of Governor Cuomo. The NRA will pursue monetary damages – for the damage it sustained.”
"This is the moment of truth for the NRA and its millions of members," says NRA interim EVP & CEO Andrew Arulanandam. "We are honored to be before the Supreme Court – protecting our First Amendment rights to defend the Second Amendment freedom. We will never shrink from the fight to defend the values and freedoms of America."
Background
On November 3, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert review of a Second Circuit decision, dated September 2, 2022, that dismissed the NRA’s claims against Vullo, the former head of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), for her role in a 2018 “blacklisting campaign” against the Association.
The NRA argues that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and used DFS's regulatory power to financially blacklist the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association in order to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.
The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court's ruling, 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 and insurance companies against servicing pro-gun groups based on the “social backlash” against those groups’ advocacy. The court also ruled that Vullo’s guidance was not a directive to the institutions she regulated but rather a mere expression of her political preferences. The Supreme Court has granted cert review of that decision.
Support & Validation
The NRA is receiving a wave of support. Twenty-two amicus briefs representing more than 190 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRA’s position, including a filing by several of the nation’s foremost First Amendment scholars. The amicus briefs also include a joint filing by dozens of congressional Republicans and filings by 25 state attorneys general.
The NRA is represented by Brewer, the ACLU, and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh.