top of page
NRA V. CUOMO, VULLO

LEGAL FILINGS

NRA-logo.jpg
NRA's Initial Complaint
May 11, 2018

On May 11, the NRA filed suit against the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and (now former) DFS Superintendent Maria T. Vullo alleging violations of the NRA’s First Amendment rights. Read the Complaint.

NRA-logo.jpg
Amended Complaint
July 20, 2018

The NRA filed its Amended Complaint on July 20, 2018. The NRA’s amended filing raises concerns about the material impacts to the NRA as a result of the actions of Governor Cuomo and DFS.

Read the Complaint.

New-York-State-DFS.jpg
State's Motion to Dismiss
August 3, 2018

The State filed its Motion to Dismiss on August 3, 2018. A hearing was subsequently held in Albany on September 10, 2018.

Read the Motion.

logo.png
Judge's Opinion
November 6, 2018

On November 6, 2018, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy issued his highly-anticipated decision, which upheld the NRA's First Amendment claims – the crux of its complaint against Gov. Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Read the Opinion.

logo.png
Judge's Opinion
August 8, 2019

On August 8, 2019, U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel issued a high-profile decision requiring defendants to provide documents for the court’s review – as the NRA pursues insights into a “blacklisting campaign” undertaken by the state of New York. 

Read the Decision.

nra_decals1_4.jpg
NRA's Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint
December 20, 2019

On December 20, 2019, the NRA filed a Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint against Gov. Cuomo, DFS and Vullo. The NRA claims to have acquired compelling evidence from Lloyd’s America, Inc. (“LAI”) that Vullo and DFS “leveraged DFS’s considerable power… to inflict targeted harm on ‘gun programs’ – irrespective of whether those programs violated the law.”  
Read the Motion for Leave.

Read the Second Amended Complaint.

nra_decals1_4.jpg
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
February 28, 2019

On February 28, 2020, the NRA filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The NRA seeks to block the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) from conducting enforcement proceedings against the NRA.

Read the Filing.

logo.png
Decision & Order
March 31, 2020

On March 31, 2020, the NRA received a favorable opinion in its appeal of a prior ruling that denied the Association access to key documents in its First Amendment lawsuit against New York Gov. Cuomo, Vullo and DFS.

Read the Opinion.

logo.png
Decision & Order
June 1, 2020

On June 1, 2020, the NRA received a favorable opinion from U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel, who granted the NRA’s request to replead its selective enforcement claim.

Read the Order.

logo.png
Decision & Order
March 15, 2021

On March 15, 2021, the Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy ruled that the crux of the NRA’s lawsuit – its First Amendment claims – will move forward. The remaining claims are: (1) the First Amendment claims against Gov. Cuomo in his individual capacity, (2) the First Amendment claims against Vullo in her individual capacity, and (3) the First Amendment claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against Vullo in her official capacity.

Read the Order.

NRA-logo.jpg
Opening Brief
January 9, 2024

On January 9, 2024, the NRA filed its opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, outlining the legal arguments in its First Amendment case, National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo. The case, which is one of the most closely watched First Amendment lawsuits in the nation, was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court in November 2023. Read the Brief.

vullo.jpg
Respondent Brief
February 20, 2024

On February 20, 2024, respondent Maria T. Vullo submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the brief, Vullo argues, "The NRA's position would force the judiciary into the middle of a wellspring of new First Amendment litigation, leading to the inevitable perception that outcomes differ not based on the relative plausibility of a coercion claim but on courts' own views of the speech at issue."  Read the Brief.

bottom of page