Supreme Court Declines to Revive NRA's Free Speech Lawsuit Against Former NY Official

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to revive the National Rifle Association's lawsuit against former New York state financial regulator Maria Vullo. The NRA had accused Vullo of violating its free speech rights by pressuring banks and insurers to avoid doing business with the gun rights group following the 2018 Parkland shooting.

Why it matters

The case highlighted the ongoing tensions between the NRA's advocacy for gun rights and efforts by some state officials to limit the group's influence. The Supreme Court's decision not to revive the lawsuit suggests the justices believe Vullo's actions, while potentially coercive, were not clearly unconstitutional at the time under the legal doctrine of qualified immunity.

The details

The NRA's 2018 lawsuit accused Vullo, the former superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services, of unlawfully retaliating against it for its gun rights advocacy by targeting it with an "implicit censorship regime." Vullo had called upon banks and insurers to consider the "reputational risks" of doing business with the NRA following the Parkland shooting. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that Vullo deserved qualified immunity because the law was not "clearly established" when she pressured companies to disassociate from the NRA.

• In 2018, the NRA filed its lawsuit against Vullo.
• In 2024, the Supreme Court initially reinstated the NRA's lawsuit after it was dismissed by lower courts.
• In 2025, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals again dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Vullo was immune from the NRA's claims.
• In 2026, the Supreme Court declined to revive the NRA's lawsuit against Vullo.