NRA V. CUOMO, VULLO
AMICUS BRIEFS
FIRE Files Amicus Brief in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
On August 5, 2024, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
According to the brief, "FIRE has a strong interest in the outcome of this case because this Court’s ruling on qualified immunity, if upheld, would allow government officials to abuse their authority to stifle protected political expression of our Nation’s advocacy groups through informal threats and coercion of private intermediaries.
BRIEFS FILED IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
First Amendment Scholars File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, six prominent First Amendment scholars filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The amici are scholars who write and teach about the First Amendment and state that they have an interest in the sound development of doctrine in the area. The scholars agree that the First Amendment prohibits the government from using the threat of legal sanctions to thwart the NRA’s advocacy.
The scholars are Floyd Abrams, senior counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Genevive Laker, professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School; Michael McConnell, professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; Geoffrey Stone, professor at the University of Chicago Law School; Nadine Strossen, professor of law emerita at New York Law School and past president of the ACLU; and Keith Whittington, professor of politics at Princeton University.
In their brief, the scholars write, “Permitting Vullo’s sanctions-backed threats in this case would provide the government the means to punish any speech with which it disagrees or views as politically unpopular. In one state, it may be the NRA. In another, it might be Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. It could be Black Lives Matter or the National Right to Life Committee. The list of potential targets is endless. And as different as those targets may be, the First Amendment protects each of them from government compelled blacklisting based on their advocacy.”
Referring to the 1963 Supreme Court Bantam Books, Inc. v Sullivan decision, the brief states, “Here, Vullo, a state official, sought to punish the NRA for its speech, threatening insurance companies with legal sanctions unless they ended their business dealings with the NRA. That conduct plainly constitutes impermissible government coercion under a straightforward application of Bantam Books. In Bantam Books, this Court held that government officials may not threaten an intermediary with legal sanctions to silence a speaker’s disfavored message. Yet that is precisely what Vullo did when she promised to forego enforcement actions against insurance companies that ceased doing business with the NRA, implying that she would bring enforcement actions against companies that continued to work with the NRA.”
United States Solicitor General Files Brief Recommending Judgment by Court of Appeals be Vacated
On January 16, 2024, United States Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "The allegations in petitioner’s operative complaint, taken as true, state a plausible claim that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with petitioner in an effort to suppress petitioner’s advocacy” and therefore the court of appeals “erred in rejecting [the NRA]’s claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage.”
Gun Owners of America, Other Groups File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and 20 other organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
GOA filed along with Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, America’s Future, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, The Presidential Coalition, Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Heller Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Public Advocate of the United States, Leadership Institute, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Clare Boothe Luce Center for Conservative Women, The Senior Citizens League, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Their brief states, “New York’s efforts to silence political opponents are not an outlier, but rather illustrates how some incumbent office holders are weaponizing government power to censor political opponents. If New York is allowed to silence gun advocacy groups, what is to prevent pro-life states from using regulatory power to censor Planned Parenthood? There must be only one rule for advocacy groups in the nation, and that is — under the First Amendment, regulators may not abuse their government powers to silence their political opponents.”
New Civil Liberties Alliance Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The NCLA is a nonpartisan nonprofit civil rights organization devoted to defending civil liberties, including freedom of speech, association, and the press.
The brief states, “NCLA is particularly disturbed by the administrative state’s abuse of authority to infringe on Americans’ rights to freedom of speech and association— a growing trend that no longer represents an aberration.”
The brief adds, “According to the facts NRA alleged in its complaint, which must be accepted as true at this stage of litigation, Vullo clearly was 'abridging,' or lessening NRA’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and association. Nothing more is needed for NRA to state a claim for violations of its rights to freedom of speech and association.”
Firearms Policy Coalition Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The FPC is a nonprofit membership organization that works to create a world of maximal human liberty and freedom by seeking to protect and advance people’s rights – especially the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The brief states, “Not satisfied with limiting the Second Amendment rights of its people directly, New York has sought to cripple the National Rifle Association by cutting it out of the market for financial services and threatening retaliation against those willing to do business with it. Just as New York’s attempts to curtail firearm rights directly violates the fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, this indirect strategy violates the equally fundamental First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This case involves multiple clear instances of thinly veiled threats made by both the governor of New York and the head of its powerful financial regulatory department to insurers, banks, and other financial institutions doing business in New York that made it perfectly clear that anyone willing to do business with the NRA would face, at least, intensified regulatory scrutiny, for having the temerity to do business with a politically disfavored organization. That these statements were understood to be threats is demonstrated by the fact that they worked.”
Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability Files Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA), Inc. filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
PPSA is a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizens who advocate for greater protection of our privacy and civil liberties in government surveillance programs.
The brief states, "Financial institutions are subject to such complex regulations
that they depend on the approval of 'nonbinding' guidance for legal safety and will almost never act contrary to this guidance. And using CSR—a controversial theory positing that taking popular or 'socially responsible' stances may increase corporate profits—to justify curtailing First Amendment rights
poses a grave threat to all constitutionally-protected individual rights. Indeed, the Constitution protects the exercise of various rights precisely because they
are unpopular or cause inconvenience. The Second Circuit’s decision, by contrast, creates what amounts to a heckler’s veto enforced via regulators claiming that unfashionable views or actors create an impermissible financial risk from the hecklers."
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Others File Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), the Rutherford Institute, and the First Amendment Lawyers Association filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "This Court has forged strong substantive and procedural protections for freedom of expression, but those formal protections can be circumvented if informal speech restrictions are not kept in check. The
First Amendment cannot become a Maginot Line. It is vital for this Court to reaffirm the principles set forth in Bantam Books but also to clearly articulate
standards for drawing 'the distinction between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce.'"
Second Amendment Foundation, Others File Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, the Second Amendment Foundation, John Locke Foundation, and Independence Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "While Cuomo and Vullo harbor a peculiar animus against the NRA, their threats place all gun rights organizations in peril. Further, consistent with the Second Circuit’s decision, Vullo’s tactics could be used to punish any advocacy a particular government dislikes, including either side of abortion,
immigration, and environmental advocacy. The First Amendment forbids such retaliation."
Indiana, Mississippi File Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, the attorneys general for Indiana and Mississippi filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "Many of NRA’s five million members live in Indiana and Mississippi. Most are law-abiding citizens who choose to buy insurance to protect themselves and their families against the vicissitudes of life, including those associated with firearms. As a result, Indiana and Mississippi have a significant interest in whether unelected New York bureaucrats may use their power over large segments of the insurance industry to force private market participants to do that which government actors cannot do directly—namely,
punish the exercise of a constitutionally protected freedom. If such constitutional-violation-by-proxy were allowed, it would infringe the fundamental rights of citizens and deter legitimate business activity, including in amici States."
Heartbeat International Files Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, Heartbeat International, Inc. filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Heartbeat International, Inc. is a 401(c)(3) nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization whose mission is to support the pro-life cause through an effective network of affiliated pregnancy resource centers.
The group's brief states, "This case asks whether the First Amendment allows a public official to intimidate and coerce private actors to suppress speech on matters of public concern. Here, it is gun control, but it could just as easily
be pro-life speech. Regrettably, many public officials are hostile to pro-life speech and have violated the First Amendment rights of those expressing pro-life views."
Former New York Superintendent of Insurance Files Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, former New York Superintendent of Insurance James P. Corcoran filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Corcoran was appointed by former Governor Mario Cuomo to serve as New York Superintendent of Insurance. He headed that agency, which had primary responsibility for regulating the state’s insurance industry, from 1983 to 1990 – before those responsibilities were transferred to the Department of Financial Services.
Corcoran’s brief states, “The extraordinary pressure that New York’s top insurance and financial services regulator allegedly put on regulated firms to cut ties with the National Rifle Association was inappropriate and inconsistent with the normal course of that regulator’s duties. Simply put, according to the Second Amended Complaint, the Superintendent used her vast and discretionary powers to impair the financial viability of an entity she and her governor politically disfavored. Those allegations are more than plausible in context and should have survived a motion to dismiss."
Montana Attorney General Files Amicus Brief Along with 22 Other States in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Knudsen filed on behalf of Montana, along with the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Arizona State Legislature.
The amicus brief states, “Beyond this Court’s docket, examples abound of the waning influence of our historically robust commitment to free-speech values, including episodes of students across the country shouting down and disrupting events with controversial speakers. When attacks on that freedom come in the form of government expression that abridges or regulates private speech, federal courts must police the lines between genuine government speech and 'surreptitious[] regulation of private speech.'”
The brief adds, “This case concerns troubling allegations of governmental abuse of power.” It notes that Vullo, who led a state agency “tasked with sweeping regulatory authority over financial institutions, leveraged her official authority to stifle the NRA’s constitutionally protected political speech.”
The Buckeye Institute Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution – a “think tank” – whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.
The brief states, “In this case, the government officials at issue are not merely hinting at potential regulation if the regulated parties fail to police themselves satisfactorily, they are, like the black-listers of the McCarthy Era, seeking to remove disfavored individuals and organizations from public commerce, thus removing them from public debate. This is akin to wielding the jawbone of an ass in the digital age, where words and statements in highly regulated industries—like insurance and finance—can have far-reaching consequences.”
The brief adds, “The government disingenuously expands its power to protect against the threats that it creates. This is like an insurance company engaging in arson to highlight the need for its products.”
The National Association for Gun Rights and National Foundation for Gun Rights File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA
On January 16, 2024, the National Association for Gun Rights and National Foundation for Gun Rights filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) is a non-profit social welfare organization established to inform the public on Second Amendment matters. The National Foundation for Gun Rights, Inc. (NFGR) is a non-profit organization and the legal wing of (NAGR).
The brief states, “The Court should take this opportunity to clarify that the government speech doctrine does not create a separate set of ‘free speech rights’ to be balanced against those of private speakers. Instead, the Court should adopt a two-part test to assess government speech claims that focuses on whether the speech in question is a purposeful communication on behalf of the government and whether the speech targets private actors for hostile treatment based on the views they express. When viewed through this lens, it is apparent that Respondent transgressed clearly established First Amendment lines.”
Dozens of GOP Lawmakers Back NRA in Free Speech Challenge
On January 15, 2024, 18 members of the United States Senate and 63 members of the United States House of Representatives submitted a joint amicus brief in support of the NRA's federal lawsuit against Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS).
“This campaign singled out the NRA’s financial relationships on account of the organization’s First Amendment-protected advocacy for gun rights, speech Vullo maligned as ‘promot[ing] guns that lead to senseless violence,’” the brief reads.
Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) told The Washington Times, “Left-wing New York state officials have attempted to weaponize the state government to punish a political group purely because they believe in Second Amendment rights. This blatantly unconstitutional action fundamentally undermines the right of free speech and equal justice under law. Other states and jurisdictions are no doubt watching.”
Sen. Budd and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) led the effort to file the brief.
Advancing American Freedom, Others File an Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 15, 2024, Advancing American Freedom and 34 other organizations, including the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "If the Constitution’s protections are to be more than mere 'parchment barriers,' courts must be able to review government action and speech that is intended to harm constitutionally protected interests even
where it does not do so directly."
Consumers' Research Files an Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 15, 2024, Consumers' Research filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Consumers' Research is an independent educational 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to increase the knowledge and understanding of issues, policies, products, and services of concern to consumers and to promote the freedom to act on that knowledge and understanding.
The organization's brief states that "...indirect government pressure not only
affects constitutional rights, but it also enables evasion of basic administrative law and due process requirements. These requirements are a foundation of
the rule of law. They are also inconvenient for the government. So when the government can achieve its goals via indirect pressure without ever promulgating a regulation or meeting a courtroom burden, it will do
so."
Competitive Enterprise Institute Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 12, 2024, the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "This case is about a public official who abused her regulatory power so as to force third parties into penalizing an advocacy organization because of its political views. As Petitioner has demonstrated, such behavior raises large First Amendment issues. But the danger of private-sector commandeering driven by government’s ire extends beyond First Amendment
concerns. The consequences of jawboning spill over in ways that undermine the law’s procedural protections and fundamental fairness."
Americans for Prosperity Foundation Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 12, 2024, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "Reliance on a private party to facilitate unconstitutional government activity as a middleman does not cut off liability even where the government official believes the intermediary would be better off silencing its customers."
American Center for Law and Justice Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 12, 2024, the American Center for Law and Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "Government agencies that use their administrative power to deliberately target those that hold views that depart from the state’s preferred
political narrative is a pernicious threat to the First Amendment. It is a poisoning of the well of public discourse that is already being tainted by other forces. Daily, the values inherent in the First Amendment are being ignored or openly challenged as passé in America. The solution is a return to constitutional
first principles rather than abandoning them."
Goldwater Institute and Cato Institute File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 11, 2024, the Goldwater Institute and Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "This Court should hold that the First Amendment prohibits informal coercion and retaliation, and that courts should closely analyze context, including the power dynamics of any applicable regulatory regime, in determining whether such coercion or retaliation has occurred."
Read the amicus brief here and a commentary by John Thorpe, Goldwater Institute staff attorney, here.
Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 11, 2024, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the public interest law arm of the Claremont Institute, filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The brief states, "This case is not about whether the government, or even an individual bureaucrat, has the legal authority to advocate for elimination of a fundamental constitutional right. It is instead about whether the government can use its regulatory powers to dissuade other private businesses from working with organizations that advocate in favor of the Constitution."
Financial and Business Law Scholars File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court
On January 10, 2024, financial and business law scholars Brian Knight of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and George Mocsary of the University of Wyoming College of Law filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA in its lawsuit against Maria Vullo, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Knight and Mocsary write, "The legitimate power of a regulator to protect financial safety and soundness should not be used to cause regulated firms to reconsider or subject to extra scrutiny a particular lawful practice or customer relationship. This is especially true where such a move impedes the exercise of constitutional rights."
They continue, "This particular case involving the NYDFS and the National Rifle Association is not the first example of regulators potentially abusing their unique positions of power for political, rather than bona fide regulatory, purposes. Unless it is curtailed, it will not be the last. The Court should address this recurring matter of great significance and reverse the decision below."
BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF NRA CERT PETITION
Texas and Indiana Attorneys General File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Cert Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
On May 24, 2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Indiana Attorney General Theodore E. Rokita submitted an amicus brief in support of the NRA’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court.
Texas AG Paxton and Indiana AG Rokita write, “Allowing government regulatory bodies to leverage their power over third parties to intrude on the speech and associational interests of any private entity harms the ability of States like Texas to maintain vibrant, growing economies. The actions taken by DFS and its superintendent in this case tend to minimize economic freedom by making businesses hesitant to interact with certain groups and individuals for fear of regulatory retaliation.”
Gun Owners of America Joins Coalition in Filing Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Cert Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
On May 24, 2023, a coalition led by Gun Owners of America filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to "protect the NRA's First Amendment freedoms."
The brief states, "Presiding over the traditionally left-leaning states of New York, Vermont, and Connecticut, the Second Circuit apparently did not stop to consider the risks its decision poses to left-leaning groups who advocate their causes in conservative states."
Goldwater Institute Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Cert Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
On May 23, 2023, the Goldwater Institute filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to "protect the NRA's First Amendment freedoms."
In a column, “Goldwater to Supreme Court: Government Can’t Punish Political Opponents for Free Speech,” Goldwater Institute Staff Attorney John Thorpe writes, “The Goldwater Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA, asking the Supreme Court to step in and declare that government officials can’t punish individuals or groups for their free speech by bullying others into cutting ties with them. In its brief, Goldwater pointed out that millions of Americans are subject to the same kind of ‘informal censorship’ that happened here. That’s because they, like the NRA’s former business partners, live and work under complex regulatory regimes where bureaucrats can easily use investigations, licensing decisions, and other forms of red tape as weapons against those whose beliefs and ideologies they disapprove of.”
Read the amicus brief.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Cert Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
On May 23, 2023, the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. The Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the principles of free markets and limited government.
Republican Attorneys General File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Cert Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
On April 5, 2023, 18 Republican Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a controversial judgment issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in NRA v. Maria Vullo.
The AGs write: “The Second Circuit’s decision gives government officials license to financially cripple their political opponents, or otherwise stifle their protected speech—whether those rivals advocate for school choice, abortion rights, religious liberty, environmental protections, or any other politically salient issue. As the ACLU argues, the decision gives ‘[p]ublic officials … a readymade playbook for abusing their regulatory power to harm disfavored advocacy groups without triggering judicial scrutiny.’”
FIRE Files Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Cert Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
On April 5, 2023, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
(FIRE) filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
dedicated to defending the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought.
The brief states: “Given its decades of experience defending freedom of expression, FIRE is keenly aware that public officials too often misuse their power through threats and other informal mechanisms of coercion to stifle controversial speakers and impose ideological conformity. FIRE submits this brief to urge this Court to reverse the alarming decision of the Second Circuit, which held that petitioner had failed to state a viable claim despite detailed allegations that a powerful New York state official threatened action against regulated entities that associated with petitioner because she opposed petitioner’s political advocacy.”
Financial and Business Law Scholars File Amicus Brief in Support of NRA Cert Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
On March 21, 2023, financial and business law scholars Brian Knight of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and George Mocsary of the University of Wyoming College of Law filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA’s certiorari petition to the U. S. Supreme Court. On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the Supreme Court to review a controversial judgment issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in NRA v. Maria Vullo.
Knight and Mocsary write that the trial court erred in “finding the lack of explicitly binding language or threats from [DFS] in its guidance letter meant that no reasonable regulated firm would consider itself bound by those letters. The reality of banking and insurance regulations is that firms frequently feel that they risk sanction if they do not comply with nominally non-binding guidance.” The authors write that the trial court misunderstood the relationship between regulators and financial institutions. Those institutions have historically faced formal and informal penalties for “failure to conform” to such guidance as issued by Vullo.
ACLU Amicus Brief
On August 24, 2018, the ACLU submitted an amicus brief in support of the NRA, accurately describing defendant's conduct as "viewpoint discrimination."
In a statement regarding the brief, ACLU Legal Director David Cole wrote, "In the ACLU’s view, targeting a nonprofit advocacy group and seeking to deny it financial services because it promotes a lawful activity (the use of guns) violates the First Amendment. Because we believe the governor’s actions, as alleged, threaten the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations, the ACLU... filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court."