On Monday, February 23, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the N.R.A.’s appeal in its case against Maria Vullo, former Superintendent of New York Department of Financial Services. This marks the end of many years of litigation, and is a legal setback for the N.R.A., as Vullo has ultimately prevailed and is not liable to the N.R.A. for taking a stance against them while she was in office.
The N.R.A. won the first time this case went to the Supreme Court in 2024. A unanimous Court held that Vullo’s actions, if the allegations were true, violated the N.R.A.’s First Amendment rights (note that the case never went to trial; the appeal was from a dismissal by the Second Circuit). I criticized the decision at the time (see also my short explainer video here), and I have a law review article about the case forthcoming in the Brooklyn Law Review. The Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit to consider the qualified immunity issue, which the Supreme Court had not considered. Note that the Court did not reverse the millions of dollars in fines paid by the N.R.A. and its underwriters for violating state insurance laws with its ill-conceived Carry Guard insurance program for its members.
Last summer, the Second Circuit again ruled in Vullo’s favor, this time on qualified immunity grounds. The N.R.A. appealed that loss to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has now refused to hear the case. I think the reasoning of the Second Circuit’s decision on qualified immunity was sound, so this was a good result. Lower-level, one-term state officials should not fear personal liability for enforcing the laws against large, politically-powerful organizations like the N.R.A., and I thought Vullo’s Guidance Documents, which were at the center of the legal dispute, merely encouraged the financial institutions under her direct regulatory purview to review their risk assessment, including reputational risks, of their relationship with provocative, controversial entities like the N.R.A. This is part of her job, and such a review of their risk portfolio is a legal duty for financial and insurance institutions. The other allegation that featured prominently in the original Supreme Court decision was Vullo’s alleged meeting with Lloyd’s, but news investigations from after the Court’s decision cast doubt on the N.R.A.’s assertions about what took place at the meeting.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the new appeal marks the conclusion of the matter. For Maria Vullo, she can finally put this ordeal behind her and will face no more litigation or liability over it. The Reload reported a statement from the NRA expressing disappointment with the Court’s “mistaken” decision not to take the case, but still touted its 9-0 victory in the original Supreme Court decision.
