Case: National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo, No. 25-479
Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2025-10-20
Status: Denied
Question Presented: 1. When Vullo implemented her scheme against the NRA, was it clearly established that the First Amendment did not allow a government official to coerce a disfavored speaker's service providers to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf? 2. When it is obvious that a government official's conduct violates the Constitution under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, is the violation clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity despite some factual distinctions that are irrelev...
On February 23, 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo, No. 25-479, ending the NRA’s latest attempt to resolve whether Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity for her alleged campaign to pressure financial institutions into severing ties with the organization. The denial came after two conferences and a full round of briefing, including twelve amicus briefs from organizations such as the Cato Institute, the Institute for Justice, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The Supreme Court docket reflects the case was distributed for conference on January 23 and again on February 20 before the denial issued.
The NRA’s two questions presented pressed the Court to clarify when longstanding precedent suffices to clearly establish a right, even absent factually identical prior cases. That is a recurring tension in qualified immunity doctrine, and the amicus support from across the ideological spectrum reflected genuine interest in the issue. The denial leaves the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity analysis undisturbed, at least for now.
Observers tracking qualified immunity reform should note that the Court passed on a clean vehicle for addressing the “clearly established” standard. More analysis of related First Amendment retaliation cases is available at SCOTUSBlog.