Supreme Court Declines to Reopen NRA’s Free‑Speech Case Against Former NY Official

Supreme Court Declines to Reopen NRA Lawsuit Over Maria Vullo

The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to bring the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit back into play after a lower court once again dismissed it.

Case Overview

• Central Issue: The lawsuit centers on Maria Vullo, former head of New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS).
• NRA’s Claim: Vullo pressured banks and insurers to cut ties with the gun‑rights group, allegedly violating its First Amendment rights.
• Background: In 2018 the NRA sued Vullo for retaliating against its advocacy following a tragic shooting at a Florida high school.
• Supreme Court Ruling (May 2024): Government officials cannot use their authority to punish or silence speech.
• Unresolved Question: Whether Vullo is protected by qualified immunity—a defense shielding officials when the law is unclear.

Lower Court Findings

• The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Vullo was immune because the relevant law had not been clearly established when she acted.
• The court reasoned that a reasonable official in her position would not have known for certain she was overstepping the line from permissible persuasion to unlawful coercion.

NRA’s Argument

• New York’s campaign effectively blacklisted the organization, denying it basic financial services and threatening its advocacy capacity.
• Vullo had urged institutions to consider the “reputational risks” of dealing with gun‑rights groups after the Parkland tragedy.
• She fined Lloyd’s of London and two other insurers more than $13 million for selling an NRA‑endorsed product deemed illegal under New York law.
• The insurers subsequently stopped offering the product following her directive.

Supreme Court’s Decision

By refusing to revive the suit, the Supreme Court leaves the question of qualified immunity unresolved. The decision signals a reluctance to reopen disputes involving political advocacy and government regulation.