Supervisory threats
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
Date: July 17, 2025
Issue: Whether former New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo had qualified immunity in a lawsuit accusing her of pressuring financial institutions to sever their relationships with the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Case Summary: A unanimous Second Circuit panel dismissed the NRA’s lawsuit alleging Vullo violated the First Amendment by unlawfully pressuring financial institutions to cut ties with the NRA.
Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and lack any reasonably available evidence showing they acted in good faith.
The NRA alleged that Vullo pressured DFS-regulated insurance companies to cease providing certain insurance products to the NRA. The NRA claimed that Vullo took these actions to thwart the NRA’s Second Amendment advocacy efforts. Vullo moved to dismiss based on the NRA’s failure to state a claim, but the district court denied the motion. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, ruling the NRA had not plausibly alleged a First Amendment claim.
The NRA appealed, and in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to examine whether a regulator violates the First Amendment by threatening regulated entities with adverse action for doing business with a controversial speaker. The Supreme Court held that the NRA raised a plausible First Amendment claim and remanded to the Second Circuit, which remanded only the qualified immunity issue.
On remand, a unanimous Second Circuit panel concluded Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity on the NRA’s impermissible coercion and retaliation claims because the First Amendment rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. The panel reasoned qualified immunity is proper because no case had clearly established that exercising regulatory power to pressure regulated entities into refraining from nonexpressive activity and disassociating from a plaintiff violated the First Amendment. “Reasonable officials in Vullo’s position would not have known for certain that her conduct crossed the line from persuasion into impermissible coercion and retaliation,” according to the panel.
Bottom Line: The Second Circuit concluded Vullo is entitled to a qualified immunity defense because the Vullo ruling was not clearly established as binding law when Vullo acted.
Document: Opinion
