About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (June 28, 2024)

handle is hein.crs/govepib0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Government Coercion of Private Speech: National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Vullo June 28, 2024 On May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court released its opinion in National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Vullo, a case addressing the First Amendment limitations on coercive government speech. Although the First Amendment does not generally prevent the government from expressing its own viewpoints, there are some instances in which government speech may infringe on private individuals' First Amendment rights. As such, courts must draw fine lines between permissible government attempts to convince others and advocate for or against a viewpoint, and prohibited attempts to coerce private entities in order to punish or suppress disfavored speech. In Vullo, an appeal from the Second Circuit, the Court held in a unanimous opinion that the NRA had plausibly alleged in its complaint that a New York state government official violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities into disassociating from the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy. While the Court reiterated that its decision did not break new ground according to existing precedent, Vullo may provide helpful guidance in determining the bounds within which government officials may advocate for certain positions. The outcome in the case may have implications for federal government officials, including Members of Congress, in their communications with private entities. This Legal Sidebar discusses relevant First Amendment principles and case background, summarizes the Court's opinion, and provides some potential considerations for Congress. First Amendment Background The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech . . . The First Amendment protects against not only state or federal government action that seeks to restrict or censor protected speech, but also retaliation by a government official against a person exercising their First Amendment rights. For example, government action that is taken because of an individual's expressive activity and that adversely affects the speaker-such as action resulting in dismissal from a job or criminal prosecution-may be grounds for a First Amendment challenge. Government action falling short of actual punishment, such as threats or intimidation, may also implicate the First Amendment by causing a chilling effect on speech. The First Amendment, the Supreme Court has observed, restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech. Under the government speech doctrine, the government Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11186 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most